On Gay Issues, 'Right' Has Stolen Christianity

NY Newsday ^ | August 4, 2003 | Fenton Johnson

[lilylangtree]

Queers and their supporters are trying to rewrite the Bible for their own means. Our country was founded on Bible-believing people. The Bible was one of two books taught in the schoolroom years ago. The Bible (old and new testaments) states in plain language that homosexuality is WRONG!

[Buggman]

A typical ploy by religious quacks to instill a perpetual sense of guilt and shame.

Man, you're positively frothing at the mouth with that comment. But let me answer you anyway.

There are two approaches one can take with this: The first is simply to note that all sin (evil, if you prefer) starts in the heart, not in the outward act, and Jesus was warning us to guard our hearts and thoughts.

However, that's the weak approach. The strong approach is to agree with you, minus the quack part. The point of the Torah (Law) has always been to reveal the evil of the human heart by exposing our inability to follow even the outward instructions. Jesus came along and raised the stakes by pointing out that following the Torah's spirit was every bit as important as following its letter--and you know what? We can't do it.

The human nature is perverse that way. I'll bet you that it is a rare day when anyone walks on your grass. But put up a "Keep off the grass" sign, and you'll soon have a trench worn through your yard.

But Christianity is not about following a bunch of rules to the letter and feeling guilt when we (perpetually) fail. It's about having a relationship with the God of the universe that is every bit as real as the relationship with your earthly parents, friends, and other loved ones. It's about admitting to ourselves and to God, "I can't do this. I can't be perfect," and then thanking Him that He was perfect on our behalf and paid the right price of our sins on the cross.

You may think that inspires guilt, but it really doesn't. A child whose parent bears scars because they took injury to save the child does not go through life beating themselves up. They just love and honor the parent all the more. So it is with the Christian: We love our Lord for the scars He still bears for us today, and strive to honor Him by living the kind of life that will do so: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such, there is no Law" (Gal. 5:22-23).

[GSWarrior]

On Gay Issues, 'Right' Has Stolen Christianity

Let's hope they don't return it anytime soon.

[Buggman]

That's the point -- religions are invented to control other people.

Hmm . . . Okay, let's run with that. How exactly does creating a religion in which each participant has direct (rather than heirarchal) access to the throne of God, in which legalism is expressly forbidden, in which faith rather than any works (ceremonies, obedience to earthly powers, etc.) is the plumb line of salvation, and in which the cheif tenament is that a carpenter from a backwater Roman province lived a perfect life, was brutally exectued, but came back to life enable you to control anyone?

Second question: If Biblical Christianity (that is, pure Christianity rather than Christianity with a lot of legalistic crap thrown on top) is such a powerful means of control, why have tyrants for the last two millennia tried to suppress the masses from having access to the Bible?

[gcruse]

A typical ploy by religious quacks to instill a perpetual sense of guilt and shame.

Lusting in your heart - the original thought crime?
If the thought equates to the action, then the next
time they pass around the collection plate, think
about putting in millions.  To actually put in anything
is not necessary; it's the thought that counts.  The
thought behind this is the rubber band that powers
hate crime legislation.  George Orwell, what a  popeyed optimist.

[I still care]

Jesus's teachings on marriage:

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
4And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made[1] them at the beginning "made them male and female,'[2] 5and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[3] 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
8He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[4] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

[Jorge]

Jesus said, "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

A typical ploy by religious quacks to instill a perpetual sense of guilt and shame.

Jesus is a "religious quack"?

This statement could only "instill a perpetual sense of guilt and shame" in those who are guilty...
..or those who are so phony as to believe how you live and appear on the exterior is more important than what kind of person you really are in your heart.

[Jorge]

Lusting in your heart - the original thought crime? If the thought equates to the action, then the next time they pass around the collection plate, think about putting in millions. To actually put in anything is not necessary; it's the thought that counts. The thought behind this is the rubber band that powers hate crime legislation.

Your comparison is based on a mistaken premise.
You misread the passage.

Nowhere does Jesus say "the thought equates to the action".

Jesus said lusting after a woman is adultery in the heart. He doesn't claim this is the same thing as a committing the actual act of adultery with her.

The differences are too obvious and don't need explaining.

Your references to the offering plate and hate crime legislation are both way off the mark.

Hate crimes attempt to discern intentions behind a criminal act.
Jesus is saying that a person can sin in their heart without ever acting it out.

They are two completely different concepts.

[sweetliberty]

"The Christian right has so monopolized the terms in these debates that to suggest alternative definitions is - according to conservatives - to place oneself outside the Christian fold."

Uh....yeah. Your point?

[sweetliberty]

"he probably worships his ass and pays a lot more attention to it than he does to the Bible"

You beat me to it!

[jlogajan]

This statement could only "instill a perpetual sense of guilt and shame" in those who are guilty...

Lust is a biological impulse. Those (guys at least) who say they feel no lust are either suffering from a testosterone deficiency, or are bald face liars.

[jlogajan]

It's about admitting to ourselves and to God, "I can't do this. I can't be perfect," and then thanking Him that He was perfect on our behalf and paid the right price of our sins on the cross.

Wait. He builds in these biological impulses, then we're supposed to thank him for his forgiveness for having them?

And then he "dies" on the cross, but he doesn't actually "die" because "he lives." So he didn't really pay any price at all. It was more like a three day coma. Except to a being with a infinite lifespan, what sacrifice is three days of sleep?

[Jorge]

Lust is a biological impulse. Those (guys at least) who say they feel no lust are either suffering from a testosterone deficiency, or are bald face liars.

I think Jesus..who is the Creator incarnate understands the nature of man better than anybody else.

And Jesus said lusting after a woman is adultery in the heart.

You want to blame it on biology...but God would not hold men responsible for something which in fact they have no choice about.

Jesus is NOT talking about a simple passing temptation.
He is talking about a deliberate act of the will, where a man approves of, welcomes and embraces a temptation to the point he is fantasizing about the act in his heart.

Nobody can blame this on "biology". And if they do, they are a liar, and will be held responsible nevertheless.

[Jorge]

Wait. He builds in these biological impulses, then we're supposed to thank him for his forgiveness for having them?

Nowhere does Jesus say biological impulses are sin, nor that he has to forgive them.

He's talking about willful and deliberate sin.

Such as your attempting to blame God for sin by painting Him as some evil monster who creates sin and then burns people in hell for it.

Both of these are examples of trying to escape personal responsibility for sin, but only end up compounding the sin.

[jlogajan]

Such as your attempting to blame God for sin by painting Him as some evil monster who creates sin and then burns people in hell for it.

The majority of living people on the earth are not Christians. According to Jesus, the only way to heaven is "through him." So most people are going to burn in hell -- even those who never heard of Jesus.

[Buggman]

He builds in these biological impulses, then we're supposed to thank him for his forgiveness for having them?

First of all, I don't regard the excessive male tendancy to want to do it with anything that's female, halfway attractive, human, and has a pulse as something that God "built in," but as a distortion of God's original handiwork. Secondly, I have the biological impulse to kill (or at least injure) when I'm angry. Should I act on it? Should I even allow it free reign in my mind until it becomes an all-consuming hate even if I don't act on it? I also have the survival instinct to lie to protect my own self-interests. Should Clinton be lauded for acting on those interests?

Are you a man, or are you an animal that runs completely on instinct?

For the record, sex is a beautiful thing, and the Bible has always portrayed it as such--in it's proper place (just as killing and doing what you have to to survive have their proper place). And that place is in the marriage bed. If you think you or anyone else is served when that ideal is perverted, then I present to you inner-city America, where having a father around is the exception rather than the rule.

And then he "dies" on the cross, but he doesn't actually "die" because "he lives."

If I take a bullet for someone and heal, does it become like I've never taken a bullet for them? Neither does the Resurrection deny what really happened on the cross.

Frankly, I don't think you or I have the capacity to really understand just what God did for us on that day. His own Son, who was eternally with God and eternally was God, was sundered from the Trinity: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" I don't believe that that was play-acting, and I don't think you appreciate just how much pain that caused Him even beyond suffering the must inhumane death ever invented by man.

Suppose that your father willingly cut off his own arm in order to save your life, and surgeons were later able to reattach it thanks to the miracle of modern medicine. Now suppose that I started poking fun at him and said, "What's the big deal? He really didn't pay any price at all; he got his arm back, didn't he?" Would you say, "Yeah, my dad sucks, it was all a big game," or would you knock me on my ass?

Do NOT treat my Lord's suffering any more lightly than you would have me treat your hypothetical father's. If you have honest questions, fine, I have honest answers--and if I don't, I'll admit it and do some homework to give you those honest answers. But this constant mocking tone of yours amounts to the trolling of an eight-year-old who hasn't two brain cells to rub together, but is full of himself anyway.

[jlogajan]

I don't regard the excessive male tendancy to want to do it with anything that's female, halfway attractive, human, and has a pulse as something that God "built in," but as a distortion of God's original handiwork.

Now for some reality. From the time boys reach puberty until the day they are planted in the ground, they masterbate -- frequently. It is unlikely they are thinking of baseball scores at the time. It is a male preoccupation because it is a natural biological impulse. In order to suppress such thoughts you have to have them in the first place and recognize them. People who suppress natural thoughts out of fear and shame end up needing psychiatric treatment.

Frankly, I don't think you or I have the capacity to really understand just what God did for us on that day.

Ha, then I wish religionoids would shut up about tellings us all what it means. Call them on their senseless explanations and suddenly "God is inscrutable." What a crock.

But this constant mocking tone of yours...

... is exactly like the mocking tone of you religioniods toward other religions. How many zillion times have I seen Christians on this forum joking about wrapping dead Islamics in pigfat? Need more examples?

[nobdysfool]

They sow to the wind, and reap the whirlwind...No concept of accountability or cause and effect. Letting Liberals "reclaim" Christianity would be like letting the fox guard the henhouse.

It could seriously be asked of them, "What part of "Thou Shalt Not..." don't you understand?

Jesus' "raising of the bar" regarding lust spoke to motives of the heart, where all sin begins. It wasn't to give the clergy a tool to perpetuate guilt, as one poster put it...I would say that particular teaching hit a little too close to home...

Slavery was treated pretty much as a fact of life in the Bible. There was no particular prohibition against it (but that doesn't imply an endorsement of it either), but as we've come to realize the value God places on us as individuals, slavery didn't fit too well with that.

[Marysecretary]

It's not a sin to have thoughts come into your head. It only becomes sinful when you dwell on them or act them out.

[Buggman]

From the time boys reach puberty until the day they are planted in the ground, they masterbate -- frequently.

I don't. I masturbated when I was a kid and learning how it all worked, but that didn't carry over into adulthood. I have numerous friends from a variety of worldviews. Most masturbate, some don't. Granted, those that don't jerk-off are a minority, but not quite as miniscule as you imagine. You can choose to believe that you are incapable of putting your right hand to rest, but some of us know differently.

Being aroused at the sight of a beautiful woman is a natural part of male life. However, when your hormones kick in, you have a choice: You can decide to act on it (adultery, unless we're talking about your wife), you can decide to indulge the fantasy (mental adultery), or you can recognize it, take control of your thought life, and move on.

People who suppress natural thoughts out of fear and shame end up needing psychiatric treatment.

First of all, that's a blatant lie that has seeped into our culture. "Oooh, if you're not thinking about sex all the time, 24/7, then there's something wrong with you! No, you can't simply be different than me by inclination or choice, you must be mentally deranged. I can therefore dismiss anything you say out of hand." What a crock. Even garbonzo, atheist that he is, recognizes the stupidity of trying to label such choices as psychological disturbances.

Secondly, you obviously haven't read all of what I posted. You are so fixated on the sexual angle that you ignored the part explaining the difference between faith and shame. When you have actually done so, we can have a coherant conversation. In the meantime, you're just indulging yourself in the dark, shouting at the world, "I am too normal! Am too, am too, am too, and anyone who disagrees with me is insane! Insane, I tell you! Mwahhaha!"

Ha, then I wish religionoids would shut up about tellings us all what it means. Call them on their senseless explanations and suddenly "God is inscrutable." What a crock.

Once again, your fixation on your fifth limb has blinded you to what I actually wrote. I did not cry "mystery!" as an excuse to avoid an honest question. When I said that we can't really understand it, I was speaking in terms of degrees.

A third-degree burn is the most painful injury a man can suffer. A person who has never suffered one can try to understand just what it feels like by analogy with pain that he has indeed known in his life, but he can't truly comprehend it on the same base level as the sufferrer.

That was why I illustrated my point with an analogy, that of your father willingly cutting off his own arm to save your life. We've all been cut and know that pain, and we cringe at the thought of what the pain of losing a limb must feel like (remember the news stories about the hiker who had to amputate his own arm to escape a rock that had fallen on him?) without really comprehending it, and no one would make fun of your hypothetical father's love, bravery, and sacrifice even if the doctors were able to reattach the limb.

Now, if amputating a limb can cause us such pain, imagine the pain it would cause a Being like God to amputate His own Son. It wasn't just the physical pain that Jesus suffered, it was the crushing loneliness that one would feel if he, in the midst of suffering terrible physical pain, were abandoned by his family and left all alone. We can understand His agony only by analogy, and I believe that falls well short of the reality.

And if you consider that a dodge, then I defy you to describe the pain of a third-degree burn in precise language that actually conveys perfectly the sensation without relying on analogy or simply saying, "It's worse than anything else you've ever felt."

Now, how about if you answer my post asking how Biblical Christianity (once again, as opposed to Christianity with extra legalistic crap tossed on top) could be used to control anybody. You Neizchioids like to throw that accusation out, but I have yet to see a single legitimate example given.