Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, September 29, 2007

Theologian says Christian churches should be leading the charge for homosexual rights

Jack Rogers, a theologian from Pasadena, Calif.,  will speak and sign copies of his book "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church" during two appearances Sunday in Lawrence. "I'm trying to help people understand that the Bible rightly interpreted ... does not condemn Christian people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered," Rogers says.

Jack Rogers, a theologian from Pasadena, Calif., will speak and sign copies of his book "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church" during two appearances Sunday in Lawrence. "I'm trying to help people understand that the Bible rightly interpreted ... does not condemn Christian people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered," Rogers says.

September 29, 2007

Advertisement

Audio Clips
Jack Rogers

If you go

What: "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church," by Jack Rogers

When/where: 3:30 p.m. at Ecumenical Christian Ministries, 1204 Oread Ave.; 7 p.m. at First Presbyterian Church, 2415 Clinton Parkway.

More info: www.drjackrogers.com

Sometimes, Jack Rogers wishes he saw a little more controversy in his presentations on gays and lesbians in Christian churches.

"I don't get hostile people coming out," Rogers says. "In one sense, that's sad. We're so polarized, people who know they will disagree with me don't come out to hear me."

Rogers, who has given some 60 presentations on the topic in the last year and a half, will come to Lawrence for a pair of events Sunday.

The first is at 3:30 p.m. at Ecumenical Christian Ministries, 1204 Oread Ave. The second will be at 7 p.m. at First Presbyterian Church, 2415 Clinton Parkway.

Rogers will speak and sign copies of his book "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church."

Rogers, who lives in Pasadena, Calif., is a theologian who taught at Fuller Theological Seminary and San Francisco Theological Seminary. He also is a former moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.

He argues for equal rights for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered, and he thinks churches ought to be leading the charge.

Biblical interpretation

"I'm trying to help people understand that the Bible rightly interpreted, which I would think is through the lens of Jesus' redemptive life and ministry ... does not condemn Christian people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered.

"That's the word I'm trying to put out, over against the excessively negative words of some parts of the religious community. I feel people are very hungry to hear a positive word from somebody representing the church."

Rogers says those who argue that the Bible condemns gays and lesbians are taking biblical literalism too far. He compares it to those who used the Bible to support slavery and to stifle women's rights - a concept he wrote about in 1999 in another book, "Reading the Bible and the Confessions."

"It's the pattern of prejudice against someone who is different," Rogers says.

He hasn't always felt this way. He says his own change of heart on the issue of homosexuality came in 1993, when he was asked by his pastor to be part of a study at his church about the issue. He reluctantly agreed, after some arm-twisting.

He spent six months studying what the Bible says about homosexuality.

"That was the beginning of a transformation, because I was, as it were, forced to study the Bible intensively for nine months on this issue, and the reality began to look different to me than what I had grown up with," Rogers says.

Conservative background

Kent Winters-Hazelton, senior pastor at First Presbyterian Church, says Rogers' conversion on the topic gives him added legitimacy and interest within the broader church.

"He comes from the conservative, evangelical side within the Presbyterian Church," Winters-Hazelton says. "He began to explore the issue at the local church and learned about other questions, perspectives and views that can be used on that (topic), and that made a change of his perspective.

"So even more valuable than his background as a theologian - and an articulate, well-spoken one - that helped him to begin to share that change of his understanding within the church."

Now, Rogers says, his audiences are made of a one-third gay and lesbian people who simply want to hear that God loves them. Many others are mainstream Christians who believe in equal rights for all - with the possible exception of gays and lesbians.

Rogers says it's his quest to convince them that there should be no exceptions.

"This is so polarized," he says. "People think there's nothing to study. They just think, 'Well, we know.' Indeed, one church leader said in my presence, 'My grandma told me it was wrong, and that's good enough for me.' That's the attitude a lot - people don't want to think about this."

Comments

Calliope877 7 years, 4 months ago

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period."

Well, it's a good thing I don't feel like having sex while on my period anyway. I think most women probably feel the same way regardless of what the Bible says.

Janet Lowther 7 years, 4 months ago

The Church is blessed by the message of the Bible, while horribly burdened by the text of the Bible.

The overall MESSAGE of the Bible is:

  1. God loves you.
  2. Don't hurt each other. 3, There are consequences for your actions.

However the TEXT of the Bible contains rules, rules which I'm sure made a great deal of sense in the context in which they were written millenia ago, but the text still has those specific rules, some of which don't make a lot of sense today.

Would anyone approve of killing every man woman and child in a city, as commanded in Joshua 6:17? Or follow the law of Deuteronomy 20:13, executing the entire adult male population of a captured town?

I could go on and on and on with horrors commanded in the Bible, yet there is a message of love and hope as well.

I consider taking the Bible literally a VERY dangerous undertaking. What PARTS of the Bible are you choosing to take literally? It is clear that most of the people who proclaim themselves to take the Bible literally leave out broad swathes. You wouldn't see ham or pizza served at churches embracing The Fundamentals if they embraced the entire document as they proclaim.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 4 months ago

displays willful ignorance of the new testament context RE "ham/pizza" in casual smear of people who hold the text of the bible dear.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

It's been a looooong time since I've read the Bible, so, some of you armchair theologians, please help me to augment my "CliffsNotes" perspective on the New Testament. As I recall, it seems that there were a handful of first-hand accounts of an incredibly spiritually insightful individual with dramatic prescriptions for living... and then Paul came along and said, "Here's the loophole...."

(Seems like a religion with that sort of "adaptability" could easily accommodate a handful of outliers.)

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

"I'll be publishing the truth and enlighten all very soon."

I trust you'll be posting it here...?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

One of the central themes of the New Testament is that organized religion of the day was clueless about God and spirituality. It is presumed that the deeper, more meaningful and relevant themes of the Bible persist throughout time.

Jeff Barclay 7 years, 4 months ago

Jesus' "redemptive love" resulted in his death, burial, and resurrection. He died for our sins. In other words, Biblically speaking, Jesus redemptive love was not a glossing over of sin, rather his sacrifice dealt with human sin as our vicarious, atoning substitute. Romans 1:25-32 includes a partial list of some of the sins we human's commit, sins which sent him to the cross. Homosexuality is one of the sins listed, not exclusively listed, but one among many. Seems outrageous that a theologian could claim the Bible or Jesus taught otherwise.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

I take it, then, that "Jesus' redemptive love" and "sacrifice" redeems ALL, homo- and heterosexual alike?

(This, BTW, is the "loophole" to which I earlier alluded-seems that we all "get off" pretty easy, by this interpretation those final days.)

waydownsouth 7 years, 4 months ago

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(A) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I think thats very clear. What part of the bible is he teaching?

teachr2937 7 years, 4 months ago

`The Bible tells us that God made everything & that all that he made is good.

Science has shown us that homosexuals have different brain wave activity & are different chemically. They didn't chose to be different; they are born different. God made them that way. Anybody that works with children & young adults can see that. We also see them go through bouts of rage, depression, drug & alcohol abuse, cutting, anorexia, suicide attempts & sexual experimentation, etc. to try to "fix" themselves so they fit in & aren't homosexual.

If society would just let them be as they are born, then many of the problems above wouldn't exist. Yes, there are other issues that teens have to deal with & don't know how, so it wouldn't all go away.

The Bible does say that man lying with man is an abomination. But it does not say that abomination is sin.

Any one remember the Yeti? The Abombinable Snowman? It was never called the sinful snowman.

There are shameless acts, and then there is loving interaction. Shameless acts receive penalty.

Odd isn't how "shameless acts" are those that we would usually consider worthy of being full of shame? Being in a loving relationship is something we all do w/o shame, & yet it is ok.

Meanwhile we are instructed to love all brethren, pray for our enemies, love our neighbors & let God judge who truly believes Jesus is our savior. As that is the main requirement for avoiding rotting in hell..

there are other sins far worse than lustful sex... the 10 commandments for example. If God can forgive them, except for using His name in vain, then even if he does consider homosexuality a sin, it too can be forgiven.

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years, 4 months ago

Homosexuals are trying to use a liberalized, denigrated society to change the definition of marriage from the union of one man and one woman to something different, something corrupt. That's why their cry for "equality" rings hollow.

Think about it: if any society on the planet (going back for millennia) had embraced the homosexual family as legitimate, then the definition of marriage might be different from what is today. The entirety of mankind, until very recently, has recognized the immutable value of a society focused upon marriage between one man and one woman, not two men or two women.

Sadly, our culture has degraded to a point where homosexuals and their sympathizers, such as the Reverend Rogers, are striving to change history's definition of marriage. We must fight to keep this from happening.

Terry Jacobsen 7 years, 4 months ago

Teacher said: "Science has shown us that homosexuals have different brain wave activity & are different chemically. They didn't chose to be different; they are born different. God made them that way."

Hmmm Hitler was just born the way he was too, and I don't think that made it ok for him to murder 3 million Jews. Jeffrey Dahmer was just born a murderer who liked to cook his victims on a stove in mom's basement, but I don't think that makes him OK. I'm not going to argue for or against the whole homosexual issue, but there seems to be error in your logic here.

One other thing. It seems false to me to suggest that this gentleman is somehow "conservative". He may have been conservative at one time, but he certainly would be considered "liberal" in his current views, by every person I know, conservative or liberal (progressive).

This is like one of my neighbors who is a staunch democrat, and yet every election he puts a sign up in his yard that says "Republicans for Sebelius", or "Republicans for whoever the democratic candidate is". This is nothing more than pretending to be something that he is not in order to give some credibility to his position. It seems very dishonest to me.

Tychoman 7 years, 4 months ago

TJ, a single issue doesn't define whether you're liberal or conservative, it's your view on a wide combination of issues, which isn't revealed in the article. Assuming one way or the other is wrong.

Waydownsouth, the Bible also says that the function of a woman is to serve her husband (because she is inferior to man), be governed by him (because he is superior), and to make babies.

You can't legislate morality based on religion. Why? If you say "Because God says so," or "because it's in the Bible" thereby implying "because God said so," you're basing morality off of what amounts to someone's opinion. It may be God's, but it's still an opinion. What if God changes his mind? If you're willing to believe that a collection of books written over the course of thousands of years by dozens of men are the exact word of God, then it is compulsory for you to also believe that God is capable of changing his mind. People do that from time to time. There ARE issues which are right and wrong because of what they are, regardless of anyone's opinion. Homosexuality and gay marriage are NOT. I have yet to see a single person give a secular reason as to why gay marriage would "hurt" or damage the current institution of marriage. I'm still waiting.

Oracle_of_Rhode 7 years, 4 months ago

If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]

Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7]

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]

If any of you has a son or a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? [Matthew 12:11]

purplesage 7 years, 4 months ago

Wriggle out of the descent into debauchery, detailed in Romans 1. Rogers, fits thetragic end of that process set forth in the 32nd verse, "Although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but give hearty approval to those who practice them." He grants approval.

The Church has a role as the conscience of society. Not everything we feel is permissible, and there are consequences to our actions. Rogers position is a total surrender to the world around us.

laughingatallofu 7 years, 4 months ago

The Church has a role as the conscience of society.

Tell that to Galileo. I'm sure that he'll feel better knowing that.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 4 months ago

We should be arguing about what causes harm "crime" and what "punishment" is appropriate for those causing that harm. A discussion of speeding tickets would seem more valuable to me!~)

The rest is belief. We've established that "You are an idiot and I am the way, truth and light."

Those seeking religious "freedom" are free to seek it. They are not free to legislate it, or they're not supposed to be, not in this country.

Perhaps "religious" freedom to legislate resides elswhere. Is it time for civil split? Do "we" want that? If we had a civil war, what would the history books write about it? Would they say it was about freedom or money?

And what would terrorists do? Would they attack the sheeple on the left coast or the phalanx on the right?

In any case, I'm sure everything would be fine on the right coast with no more homosexuals. The big wall that would be built along the eastern edge of the Mississippi would keep illegals out. Y'all would be all safe and cozy. You could breed like multipliers and subduers, outlaw abortion and nightclubs... It'd be great. Y'all might miss the tax dollars of the other sheeple but the joy of not having any social programs would suit you so very well. Y'all don't run out of resources over there, OK?~)

-This message was brought to you by the stick it (comment) anywhere society and grill.-

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

L'E.T. says: "We should be arguing about what causes harm 'crime' and what 'punishment' is appropriate for those causing that harm.... .... .... .... ...."

Equating crime with sin, here? (Hard to tell-you are rather EXPANSIVE these days.) Doesn't this harken back to the days of speculation about the number angels that can fit on the head of a pin? Didn't one of those "A"-guys (Augustine, Aquinas... can't remember which) insightfully point out that the "sin" is not in the "act" but in the "turning away from God" (my paraphrase) and that, in this respect, all sins are equal?

(Granted, neither got a chapter in the Big Book, so rather than being the Word of God, perhaps it was only a Tangential Musing of God.... And, no, I don't have time to look these thangs up on Wiki... for chrissakes, it's the sabbath!)

mick 7 years, 4 months ago

Why doesn't this Rogers guy give us any actual scripture to back up his contention?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

Marion's reply triggered another dormant neuron for me, regarding the whole "nature-nurture/man-as-creation/organism-within-the-environment/universe" thang.

(If I recount correctly-forgive me, here, I'm working with a weak trace-) In Teilhard's scheme, rather than being "within" or "at odds" with his world, man was conceived as being an evolutionary "extension" of the universe-in short: the universe becoming aware/conscious of itself.

Jesuit priests... you gotta love 'em!

(Now, if would could just grow some introspective eyes to match those which permit us to peer out across the cosmos.)

bearded_gnome 7 years, 4 months ago

Why doesn't this Rogers guy give us any actual scripture to back up his contention?

because there ain't any Scripture to support his contention.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

"would could"

woulda, coulda, shoulda?

(Now, if WE could just grow some introspective eyes to match those which permit us to peer out across the cosmos.)

beatrice 7 years, 4 months ago

Leviticus 11:10 states that it is an abomination to eat shellfish. So, if being gay is as bad in God's eyes as a family outing to Red Lobster, I'm not quite sure why so many people have their panties in such a wad over this issue.

Further, the president of Iran recently claimed that there are no homosexuals in his country. Any religious zealots who wish to live in a place where they take God seriously and there is no way gay marriage will ever be allowed, there truly is a place for you.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

"Leviticus 11:10 states that it is an abomination to eat shellfish."

Metaphor?

toefungus 7 years, 4 months ago

There have been so many rethinkings. Some over hundreds of years, others over a couple of decades. The Christian faith seems to not know what to believe. Who's so say whats right and what is wrong. It appears more and more that all religion is just a human invention.

beatrice 7 years, 4 months ago

75x - I see you jumped right into the big 10 to make your argument, instead of comparing one form of "abomination" listed in Leviticus with another, as I had done. Now, if you show me where it is stated in the Ten Commandments that being gay is against God's list of top ten rules, only then should you bring murder into the equation. Until then, being gay falls into that Old Testament category with eating shellfish, men trimming their hair, working on the sabbath ... Thus going to Red Lobster on the sabbath must be even worse in God's eyes than just being gay!

beatrice 7 years, 4 months ago

75x - I don't believe that, nor did I state such a thing. I simply stated that "abomination" equals "abomination." If we are going to use the Bible as the means of arguing "The Law," then please show me where it states that, in God's eyes (not man's predjudice), there are rankings to abominations, or degrees of severity for abominations.

Clearly, abominations are not as bad as breaking the Big Ten Rules, otherwise, why make such a production out of those ten? Why even have a top ten, if all things are equal?

Thus, abomination isn't the same as murder (top ten no-no), and both being a gay man and eating shellfish are abominations (according to the Bible). I don't know why you have such a problem with the word of God. It seems pretty clear to me. If you don't agree with the word, I'll bet it is an abomination.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

Clearly, our presence in the Middle East over the past couple of decades has identified us as... "a bombin' nation."

(OK, I'm going away, now....)

guesswho 7 years, 4 months ago

so lesbianism is OK since the Bible doesn't specify a woman cannot lie down with another woman?

Jason Bowers-Chaika 7 years, 4 months ago

Eating Shellfish and pork are only a few of the Leviticus no, no's. How many of the Holy Rollers here condemning gay people went to church today in a poly-cotten blend garment. Mixing fibers is also a so called abomination. Gotcha, you evil sinners. Nanny Nanny Boo Boo what you say to me sticks to you.

If we men are not to lay with men as with women then is it okay for us to DO IT standing up? Call me kinky but thats the way I like it anyway.

Tell me this, if homosexuality is such a big thumpin big deal then why isn't there one red word in the Bible that Jesus said about the subject? Yall please stop comparing a loving relationship with criminal behavior. God made me gay. I sure didn't choose a life that would put me at the mercy of bigots that would bash me, deny me a job, kick me out of an apartment or use religion to deny me equality as an american citizen.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 7 years, 4 months ago

Homosexuality is no longer in the DSM because Gay people are just as well adjusted or not as any other population. However, one thing that is in the DSM is a disorder involving extreme prejudice against others. Frequently people who have a problem with gay people have a latent attraction to members of the same sex. They have self loathing due to the conflicted feelings they experience.

It can be treated and there is hope. There is no reason to live with the dread disease of prejudice against gay people.

Tychoman 7 years, 4 months ago

Captain Obvious, you have now been demoted to troll and stripped of your rank. About face and away with you. The only people who seriously consider homosexuality a disease are those that seek "therapies" and "cures" for themselves.

Ith there thomething you want to tell uth, thweetie?

RedwoodCoast 7 years, 4 months ago

I think it is funny that: 1)People go so ape about what is said in a book that was written in the context of a society that existed 2000+ years ago and is drastically different from our modern society.

2)People selectively use what the Bible says to reinforce their own prejudices/intolerances.

3)Politicians often pay more heed to what the Bible says than the foundational documents that define our government and their roles within it.

waydownsouth 7 years, 4 months ago

Leviticus 18 6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion

So those of you that "god made you gay" and that there is nothing in the bible that says otherwise. I'm guessing that all these other verses that are also in the same chapter are ok as well because god changed his mind and made you that way. Or maybe its because its just the Old Testament and that was to long ago to be take seriously. If thats the case as you say we should except all of these and not pitch a fit when it comes up in the news or happens to your children or your pet, sister, or brother.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 7 years, 4 months ago

Doesn't Leviticus also demand that if one's neighbor doesn't observe the sabath then he should be stoned to death?

If you would like to take Leviticus literally, I'd watch your back. Someone might not think you're praying hard enough. Don't complain if it happens to you, your sister, or YOUR PET.

waydownsouth 7 years, 4 months ago

If thats in Leviticus show me where. It does say in Exodus anyone who desecrates the sabbath must be put to death. Maybe thats the one your looking for.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 7 years, 4 months ago

Well, while were at the Bible buffet, let's enjoy some more tidbits. Scripture also tells us that we MUST marry our brother's widow. I don't think she would accept my proposal as I'm just a little too gay for her and she is just a little to female for me.

Still waiting for what Jesus had to say about the alleged sin of homosexuality so serious to be called an abomination.

waydownsouth 7 years, 4 months ago

The last verse in Leviticus chapter 18

29 " 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things-such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'

First chapter of Romans

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

If you don't believe in what the bible says or its teachings then this will mean nothing to you. You can't just pick out the parts that you like and throw away the rest. What i'm saying is this. What this man is teaching is not from god he is twisting the word of the bible and what is written. God does forgive and he does love us all. He wants us to do whats right. However he has given us freewill the decision to make up out minds. Its in the bible what is right and wrong. its our choice what we choose.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 7 years, 4 months ago

Look at the context of those passages and the time in which they were written. They reference the practice of cults and prostitution in religious practices. Unatural is just as odd for a gay person to try to have heterosexual sex as for a heterosexual to try and have gay sex.

One thing that is being overlooked here is that this is America where we have a pluralistic society. My religion at Metropolitan Community Church embraces me as I am-Gay. My government is supposed to grant me equality as a citizen. It does not. The theologen featured in the above article is advocating equality for LGBT persons. Your religion does not trump my religion in America. I deserve equality under the law.

waydownsouth 7 years, 4 months ago

Yes there was alot of corruption going on in he bible and he took out the whole race with a flood. He made a promise that he would never flood the earth again. Later in the bible god took out Sodom and Gomorrah because of the corruption. In revelation the people of this earth again will be distroyed except for those that follow him. gayok you go to church so since i have never been to that church what do they only teach god it love? Do they even teach the bible or just pick out the parts that they like and twist and make up excuses for the rest.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 4 months ago

Beware of false profits!

(OK, I should have stayed away.)

craigers 7 years, 4 months ago

Truth is not relative. The truth in the bible is God-breathed and doesn't change just because a sinful society does.

gr 7 years, 4 months ago

"The point is that religion cannot be used to deny some citizens' their rights."

First, gays aren't denied their rights.

Second, you do not believe nor will back that statement for everyone. Why use it?

==========

"why do we not freak on shellfish or poly-cotton blends"

Don't know about the poly blends, but why shouldn't we "freak" on shellfish? Give a good reason why we should NOT.

craigers 7 years, 4 months ago

Scenebooster, the fact that you think the world of right and wrong is all dependent on circumstances scares me.

Americorps, I am not going to discuss covenants with you since I have done that on other forums as well as others that believe in the bible. Why do people ask the question about shellfish and mixed fiber clothing anymore? We have spoken to this before and nobody wants to hear it.

I'm out.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 3 months ago

"I haven't seen any more evidence for the existence of God..."

Yep. However, is the existence of "God" any less believable than your own existence?

Quick, who said it first? (You'll have to tell me, as I've long ago forgotten.)

krisell 7 years, 4 months ago

Mick says: "Why doesn't this Rogers guy give us any actual scripture to back up his contention?"

I'm guessing he'll have plenty of actual scripture to back up his contention when he actually speaks at the churches. Maybe instead of just bashing him right off the bat, those who disagree with what he says should actually attend one of his lectures? At least learn what the other side is saying before you completely discount it. The article does say he spent six months researching the bible, so chances are pretty good he's got some good evidence to back up what he's saying.

Kim Gouge 7 years, 4 months ago

waydownsouth: re: your 9:58 post last night. So, when was all that crap added to the Bible. I believe it's called a "revision." Which of the hundreds of revisions over the years, by man, resulted in those verses?

sfjayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: I agree completely. The word "marriage" shouldn't be utilized at all for the civil relationship, as "marriage" directly implies a certain religious faith. Especially if "marriage" is going to only be permitted between two people of the opposite sex, as defined by the Bible

Logic: Im a straight man married to a woman. We were not married in a church, nor by a minister of any religious faith, we don't read nor believe in the bible, and do not participate in any organized religion. By your definition, should I be calling our marriage a 'civil union'? No, I shouldn't, and one more thing - religious people do not own the word marriage - anyone can use the word, and I hope that more same sex couples get the freedom to do so.

promitida 7 years, 4 months ago

TJ in lawrence, did you seriously just compare homesexuals to Hitler and serial killers? That's insane. You weren't proving a point, you were making yourself out to be an idiot.

Tychoman 7 years, 4 months ago

Inscient, recess is over. Time to go back to class and actually learn something.

Waydownsouth, I have a link for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNi... Watch it. Quoting Leviticus won't get you anywhere. I hope you're not wearing a polycotton blend or enjoy the taste of shrimp or lobster.

Tychoman 7 years, 4 months ago

Obvious, you and Inscient's posts could be construed as threats and harassment. Or should I say conservativeman? No one questions my masculinity and refers to me as a woman (something I consider insulting and harassment) like you do.

You're out of here.

Kathy Getto 7 years, 4 months ago

Well, the world is full of freaks and geeks, and..........................homophobes.

waydownsouth 7 years, 4 months ago

Tychoman you are going to base your arguement on a TV show that mocks the bible there for mocking God. You don't seem to like me quoting Leviticus but you and a few others only bring up the clothes and food. Why are you not defending incest and bestiality? Would that be because its WRONG and IMMORLE. Leviticus is not the only chapter in the bible i quoted. I believe i also mentioned something in Romans as well

Tychoman 7 years, 4 months ago

Okay Captainconservativeman, I'll take the bait. How does opposing and disproving outdated and ignorant rules imposed by the Bible make me intolerant of Christians?

What is it about my belief that I deserve equal rights as you makes me a totalitarian hypocrite? Look up the definition of both of those super-big words.

What about my arguing with you makes me a coward? Grow up and come up with some new material before you're banned--AGAIN.

Get off your high horse before you realize it's nothing but a mule. See? Look, I can say things that don't make sense, too!

Tychoman 7 years, 4 months ago

Waydown, that show wasn't mocking the Bible. It was making legitimate points. It was mocking fundamentalist Christians like you who have no idea what faith really means. I haven't read Romans, therefore I didn't comment on it. I HAVE read Leviticus, however.

If you're allowed to cherrypick points from the Bible and take them out of context, then I can cherrypick which one of your ridiculous points I do and don't want to address (incest, bestiality, etc.)

Tychoman 7 years, 4 months ago

Besides, I wasn't basing my argument (spelling, wow!) off of The West Wing at all. That was merely an example of how ludicrous your own argument is.

thusspokezarathustra 7 years, 3 months ago

If Electricity Comes From Electrons, Does Morality Come From Morons?

waydownsouth 7 years, 3 months ago

I took the points out of the bible that pertained to the artical. I cut and pasted the verses from the bible. So how did I take it out of context? Maybe you should read Romans as well. I use the biblegateway.com . I has the translation of all the bibles i chose the one that was easy to understand. You are the one picking and choosing which verses to attack. Why don't you explain to me what faith is since i clearly don't understand. And maybe you could add some referance other than utube. Maybe something to back up what you are trying to say. Good night i'll be sure to pray for you.

Chris Golledge 7 years, 3 months ago

Umm, why do we care what the Bible says? There are more different variations of words in the Bible than there are words in it. It was written by men, it has been changed by men, lot's of times, sometimes on accident, sometimes on purpose. (And there is some evidence that some of the heavy hitters in early Christianity were women, but I digress.) Sometimes the meaning is preserved in the variations; sometimes the variations directly contradict each other. There are no original texts from which to base modern translations. All the quotes from the Bible prove is that there have been homophobes in the past the same as there are today. Get over it; figure out for yourself that it is wrong to kill or steal. If you must come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong, fine, but don't use a collection of other people's beliefs to justify your belief.

The Bible contains many great teachings, it also contains a lot of BS. Take Abraham, he heard a voice in his head and came within moments of killing a child, his own child. He is considered a good man. Would we consider our neighbor a good man if he did the same? I guess it is supposed to be a story about faith; the only faith that I get out of it is that sometimes even madmen suffer moments of clarity - "What the hell am I doing?"

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religious sects in the world; we've no way of knowing which is correct. All that implies is that the true nature of God is beyond human understanding.

Tychoman 7 years, 3 months ago

Captain I'll tell you one more time, I consider you making implications about my masculinity and sexuality harassment and offensive. I'm telling you AGAIN to stop.

Waydown, having good faith is being smart enough when to recognize parts of the Bible that are outdated and were only good for the time in which they were originally written and not for the 21st century. If you are quoting Leviticus as evidence against homosexuality, I'm quoting parts of Leviticus that tell you you can't eat shellfish or plant two different crops together or wear a poly-cotton blend. I'm still waiting for ANYBODY to give me a good secular reason why marriage should stay between one man and one woman and not include two consenting adults of the same sex.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 7 years, 3 months ago

The story of Abraham is interesting in that it shows that God can change God's mind. God first told Abraham to sacrifice his son then God told Abraham not to.

The phrase God is still speaking is quite true in my humble opinion. Rigid adhering to literal reading of ancient texts while ignoring the context in which they were written is fool hearty.

God gave us the gift of reason. Use it.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 7 years, 3 months ago

Beyond the very good discussion of the first amendment reasons why same sex couples should be allowed to marry. One would be remiss to not discuss the forteenth amendment dealing with equal protection under the law. In order to deny one group the same protections under the law there is a very high hurdle the government must clear. The government must prove that there is a significant public interest in discriminating.

There are many reasons why the government should actually promote marriage between same sex couples. Stable relationships are good for society.

Ironically, the same persons that would demonize and paint all homosexuals as promiscuous hedonistic bed hoppers would deny the same persons the right to have legal bonds to promote monogomy.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 3 months ago

Cherry picking Leviticus19:18- ...love your neighbor as yourself.


Oh, and don't hate yourselves!~)

waydownsouth 7 years, 3 months ago

Tychoman that is not what the meaning of faith is. Faith is believing in something that you can not see. Faith is is putting trust in a person. Since you do not like the bible try looking that word up in the dictionary. There are many different variations of that as well but people do not seem to have a problem with that. While your at it you can look up marriage as well. Talk about outdated that word came into effect between 12501300. Maybe to keep up with the times you could call it something else.

staff04 7 years, 3 months ago

"no other purpose than to deceive weak minds with weak argument..."

HAAAAHAHAHAAAAHAHA!!!

Funniest thing I have read in a long time. You just summed up the Bible in 11 words...

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

"If you are quoting Leviticus as evidence against homosexuality, I'm quoting parts of Leviticus that tell you you can't eat shellfish or plant two different crops together or wear a poly-cotton blend."

Tyco might have something there - that is if Leviticus was the only place. The idea is that perhaps instruction in Leviticus was ONLY for a specific people at a specific time. Provided that was true and evidence could be shown for it, then he would have a good point.

While the "poly-cotton blend" may not be found elsewhere in the Bible (if even in Leviticus!), the others are. Deviant sexual practices and distinction between clean and unclean animals ARE found elsewhere which do not apply to the people of Leviticus.

1derer 7 years, 3 months ago

Didn't Hubbard claim that we are descendants of aliens? Or maybe only some of us are? As you can tell, I don't know much about Scientology. So would that mean there are no homosexual aliens/Scientologists AND no homosexual Iranians? Just 1dering.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 3 months ago

Didn't Hubbard once try to claim a lottery prize, only to find that his ticket was for overparking?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 3 months ago

"Ain't Google a wonderful thing?"

Hey, this posting of external links could catch on... here's a slice:

http://pi.ytmnd.com/

[audio recommended]

Tychoman 7 years, 3 months ago

I haven't seen any more evidence for the existence of God than I have for the existence of the Greek or Roman gods or any other polydeities or deities in the world. Why should I follow yours?

Inscient, your posts show nothing other than your obvious gluttony for punishment and the inevitable and imminent loss of your account privileges. I hope you sleep well at night believing that you've actually ruined people's days with your drivel. For you denial's not just a river in Egypt, it's a freaking ocean.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 3 months ago

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."

Quick, who said it first? (You'll have to tell me, as I've long ago forgotten.)

agtprovocateuse 7 years, 3 months ago

inscient -

How can you say that laws against same-sex marriage don't discriminate? At the very least, they discriminate on the basis of sex. If I were a male, I could marry my girlfriend. But, because I am a female, the law prohibits such a union. The law, therefore, treats me differently because of my sex.

agtprovocateuse 7 years, 3 months ago

Inscient says:

"In 20 years a simple blood test will determine if a mothers [sic] baby is lacking the required hormones for its normal development. Hmmm. Mother has to make a decision? A prescription hormone patch to prevent her baby from developing with a deficiency? Or allow her child to develop a disordered behavior do [sic] to a (preventable) brain abnormality. 99.9% of Mothers will pick the hormone patch. Or it might even be a one time flintstone chewable. Regardless of the delivery, the implication/fact is that it is not 'normal'."

Let me see if I understand your argument.

Homosexuality is abnormal. Homosexuality is preventable. Therefore, we ought to prevent homosexuality.

It appears to me your argument is resting upon a rather questionable major premise, i.e., that anything abnormal and preventable is undesirable and should be eradicated. Approximately 85% of the population is right-handed. Does this suggest a corresponding social policy? Should we seek to eradicate left-handedness? Only 2% of the population is naturally redheaded. Ought we also eradicate red hair?

I also question whether 99.9% of mothers would choose to modify a child's sexual orientation. (I certainly wouldn't). Even if that's true, however, don't you think that says more about the way our society treats queers than about a mother's moral judgment regarding sexual orientation?

agtprovocateuse 7 years, 3 months ago

That's exactly my point, inscient. You seem to suggest that homosexuality is "disordered" simply because it is "different." If I've misunderstood you, I sincerely apologize. Do you have any other evidence, besides the infrequency with which homosexuality occurs, to suggest that it is a "disorder"?

Tychoman 7 years, 3 months ago

Good thing being gay isn't a disorder or anything that needs to be corrected/ashamed of, otherwise pro-eugenics Nazis like Inscient would be in charge of the propagation of the human race.

workin2hard 7 years, 3 months ago

Dosen't science say that there is a chemical difference in gay and straight people. And that something happens in the early days of development to create a gay person. If thats the case then scientists should be comming up with a cure soon. That would then mean that if there is a scientific difference in a certian part of the population that would be a disorder. Either mental like ADD or In gentetics like downs syndrome. Unless of course it is truely a choice either conscious or unconscious.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 3 months ago

So, if I'm understanding correctly... homosexuals are "sheep."

Rams ramming rams.

Ewwwwwwe!

ksmom 7 years, 3 months ago

Christians shouldn't be in charge of ANYTHING!

Tychoman 7 years, 3 months ago

CO and Inscient, there's a line between being funny to get a rise out of people and being all-out offensive. It astounds me how far you've crossed that into offensive territory. I'm also sickened by the fact that in forums like these the LJWorld moderators appear to be so much more silent and passive about policy violations than on other calmer boards.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 3 months ago

So, you liked mine, eh, Tych?

( Admit it... c'mon... ADMIT it...! )

Tychoman 7 years, 3 months ago

It would have been funnier if it weren't a headline almost a year ago, but nice try, TRA.

Tychoman 7 years, 3 months ago

Better, TRA. That's funny.

Captain, calling for censorship of yours and Inscient's hate speech is hardly out of line.

agtprovocateuse 7 years, 3 months ago

inscient says:

"Deviant behavior is deviant regardless of how many times you say, post, wish it wasn't. I view homosexuality as equivalent to bestiality, pedophilia or necrophilia."

How can you possibly equate sex between two consenting adults with bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia, all of which involve sex with beings that are incapable of consenting?

Kim Gouge 7 years, 3 months ago

"I view homosexuality as equivalent to bestiality, pedophilia or necrophilia." Obvious sarcasm, right? Nobody's really that stupid are they?

Kim Gouge 7 years, 3 months ago

Scenebooster....not new but don't spend alot of time here. No offense taken.

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

"How can you possibly equate sex between two consenting adults with bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia, all of which involve sex with beings that are incapable of consenting?"

Dead deer are beings?!

Misleading comparison.
Correct comparison: deviant sexual practices.

Tychoman 7 years, 3 months ago

I'm floored by the inaction of the moderators.

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

I have still yet to hear a cogent argument about how anything dead deer humpers might do would impact, in any way, my life as a straight, married person.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 3 months ago

I suppose that we'll then have to deal with gay divorce....

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

"I have still yet to hear ..."

"Ah, gr:taking the lowest of roads since 2005."

scenebooster admits his point was invalid.

ddowns 7 years, 3 months ago

It appears Jack Rogers is more interested in selling his book and his liberal political views than serving Jesus and the his Church. Anyone capable of reading the plain English/Hebrew/Greek texts of scripture knows God, Christ, and Paul condemned homosexual behavior. Rogers, like all liberals, demonstrate a fundamental contempt for law--God's law and Constitutional law--to promote special rights for a privileged few in bondage to their sin. Liberals like Rogers give lip service to God's word, but they deny it power. As it says in Hebrews, God's word is powerful. It is the power unto salvation from sin and Satan, according to Paul.

Rogers and his message represents a tragic problem in American society, which is the complete irresponsible stance of American religious, social, and political leadership. Put in a different perspective, it is the 'falling away' mentioned by Paul. The meaning of Rogers' message demonstrates the time mentioned by the prophets when evil will be called good, and good evil is upon us all. It is similarly demonstrated by the Roger's liberal gospel of love. However, when liberal like Rogers refer to the gospel of live, it is an application of doublespeak actually meaning tolerance. It is the gospel of tolerance, and not the gospel of the kingdom of God's Son. It is radical egalitarianism repackaged in biblical terminology. It conforms to the post-modern ideology of moral relativism, and exemplifies the return of a form of antinomianism that extends beyond theology to social law as well.

All of which means this: If Americans will continue to enjoy their rights and freedoms protected by Constitutional law, they have to stand against liberals, gay politics, and liberal religion. They will have to force lawmakers and their religious leaders to uphold the law of God and Constitution, repeal all unconstitutional policy and law. That means most law pertaining to sexual orientation and same-sex laws, not to mention many others.

Never in American legal history has bad behavior been awarded equality, anti-discrimination, and other special rights.

The fact is Rogers message, and all others like him, is one proclaiming that immoral and unlawful tyrants will rule the lives of Americans.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.