No, you read right. Apparently, knowing that they have alienated their base to the point of no return, Bush's administration has no problem with admitting that there's no reason why gays shouldn't be married, even if it is a subliminal admission.
From the article:
Oh, good god in heaven NO!!! She referred to his partner's mother as his "mother-in-law"? Of course, anyone who knows me knows I call Jane and Ralph my in-laws. Rich and I are married in everything but paper! It is a societal norm for persons to refer to their significant other's parents as "the in-laws" whether they're married or not. (SIDEBAR: Isn't it interesting to note that the term is "in-law" and not "in-god"? Things that make you go "Hmm...") But the AFA states in the article that
The ceremony involved Secretary of State Rice and the swearing in of Mark Dybul, an open homosexual, as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator -- a position that carries the rank of ambassador. An Associated Press photo of the ceremony also shows a smiling First Lady Laura Bush and Dybul's homosexual "partner," Jason Claire. During her comments, Rice referred to the presence of Claire's mother and called her Dybul's "mother-in-law," a term normally reserved for the heterosexuals who have been legally married.
Okay, first things first: How is this offensive? Who got offended? Who was personally maligned and had their reputation infringed upon? (HINT: No one.) Well, only the fundies were left with egg on their face as they tried to make sense of their poster-boy's employee's words. I'm sorry, but if the comment in no measurable way affects your life, you have no right to be offended--and even if you were offended, who cares? It isn't illegal to offend someone, and the day it does become illegal, I'll be moving...
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic.
"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."
Sprigg says in light of the Foley scandal, "it's inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things." He also notes that Rice's comments defy an existing law on the books protecting traditional marriage. "So, for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," the FRC spokesman states.
Then we have the quote: "We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse[...]" Excuse me? Does anyone here know the history of AIDS? How AIDS is affecting this country at this moment? While we are the minority who suffered most grievously when this epidemic first hit the country (and were subsequently ignored by the GOP since it was thought that only gays and not "straight" people were getting it), we have a great sense of the devastation this disease ravages upon people. We lived through it--alone! It is still sometimes referred to as "the gay disease" even though it now stretches across all races, genders, and ways of life, in no part thanks to the Reagan administration's ignoring its existence! Yes, the prolific lifestyles of some homosexuals and drug users played a huge part in its spreading, but if people would have been able to spread the word and let people know what it was, how it worked, and its devastating consequences, hundreds of thousand of lives could have been saved! So, not only is it appropriate for a homosexual man to be in charge of this program, to try to educate the deluded portions of the population and educate them about the disease, it is probably best since our community has been fighting and educating about it since we first had it rip through our lives. This analogy would have been more appropriate if the person in charge were a conservative fundamentalist, who have never made it a secret that they feel we not only don't deserve to live, but we don't deserve to exist. (SIDEBAR: To see how AIDS is currently spreading among the population affecting both gay and straight worlds and lives, see their website here. Note that while "gay cases" are much higher than straight cases [because it includes a cumulative total all persons who were diagnosed with AIDS from the beginning who are still alive today as was noted the rampant spread among the gay population from the beginning], the fastest rising rate for HIV/AIDS is among the African American population, and more than 50% of those cases are among African American young women! And you still think this is a "gay disease"? Fundies suffer from "can't think" disease!)
But if their foot wasn't in their mouth far enough, they insert their other foot beside the first when they say "Sprigg says in light of the Foley scandal, "it's inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things." He also notes that Rice's comments defy an existing law on the books protecting traditional marriage. "So, for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," the FRC spokesman states.
"In light of the Foley scandal"? So now their Republican fucked-up pedophile stalker who claims victimization of "alcohol, homosexuality, and priest abuse" as the reasons for his fuck-up activity are now reasons to not refer to one's in-laws as in-laws? Not only that, but Rice apparently "broke some laws" by simply saying "in-laws." If that isn't fascism for you, I don't know what is. Was Rice marrying them? Oh, no. Was she handing them a marriage certificate? Um... no. Was Rice advocating for the repeal of the so-called (and hilariously so) Defense of Marriage Act? Uh... um... no, no she wasn't... She was talking about the not-so-traditional family (and it is a family, no matter how you try to deny it) up on stage with her as she honored him and his loved-ones on his new position within the Republican administration. And in there was a tacit (if subconscious) admission that, against not-so-popular opinions against the thought, gays should be allowed to get married, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. End of facts.
But, being the obnoxious fascists that they are, the AFA goes on to say, in what I'm sure they think is a cleverly hidden jab:
You mean-- No, you're lying! A homosexual can touch a bible and not burst into flame? Was god asleep? Nuh-uh!! Get outta here!... Well, I'll be darned. (HINT [and quite a monstrous one...]: Swearing in on the bible is nothing more than a tradition... not a statement of belief or advocating to uphold said fairy tales within... I know many of you find that appalling, but it's none-the-less true. Sorry to burst reality for you like this, but someone had to, I suppose.) Yes, indeed. In fact, many a Buddhist, Hindu, satanic worshipper, liberal Christian, atheists, and hell, even a few child molesters and child stalkers (i.e., Foley!) have sworn on the bible, whether to hold an office or give testimony in a court of law. And none of them have died for that reason. Or been stricken with leprosy. Although perhaps bad fashion sense may have followed, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy existed for a reason, and all was well.
According to news reports, in all three cases the men's homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was sworn.
But I think this is what cracks me up the most from the article:
What the "moral majority" has to realize, like so many voting blocks that make up the vast arena of voting Americans in this country, is that they are not a deciding block of voters, but they help. Gay Americans realize this, and so we take all candidates with a grain of salt, vote with the lesser of evils (one of the reasons I'm voting for Bob Casey in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote for Senator--he's not Rick Santorum, and that's good enough for me, even though I disagree with almost everything Casey stands for as well...). Not only is the so-called "pro-family" block of voters not a majority of voting Americans, the "pro-family" voters are only one of several million constituents that the representatives in office are trying to please and balance. Somebody needs a reality check--or, at least, a small enough dose to get them through the confusion...
Some pro-family people are starting to wonder if this homosexual influence within the GOP may account for the party's lack of action on social conservative issues. FRC's Tony Perkins says that among the questions that need to be asked are: "Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?"
Thanks to The Dyke Squad for the link to the article. You can read their take on this article by clicking here.
21 comments:
Certain provisions of the Marriage Protection Act are unconstitutional, and I'm surprized it hasn't been challenged more openly in the courts.
First, the constitution requires all states recognition the legally issued certificates of every other state for a reasonable period of time. In the case of Marriage, a reasonable period of time is until death.
Secondly, Marriage can't even be regulated by the Federal Government since it is an institution that is established and maintained by the states. The Constitution makes it clear that any authority not specifically given to the Federal Government in the constituation is in fact held by the states!
So, maybe wait until our country is a bit more tolerant before challenging the Marriage Protection Act in courts (to stave off a constitutional admendment which is much harder to challenge)? I don't know about that. I think this thang needs to be handled head-on, but after the upcoming presidential election (so as to not give the GOP ammo during the election as in 2004). :)
Leviticus 20:13. Read it and repent. What they are doing is sin, and so are you. It is a shame that the world has come to this but these perverts are being accepted as normal now.
Anon:
1. Define "normal."
2. Do you eat shrimp? Ever touch a football? Reread Leviticus and repent of that. Use all of it or none of it, or you're a hypocrite. End of story.
3. Why are you afraid to put your name on your words?
FCSuper: It's working its way through the court systems as we speak in several states. It won't go to federal courts until all state legal avenues have been exhausted, from what I understand...
Darkmind: Hehehe! :D
hello jason! this comment is for that anon mostly. where in the world do you get off on telling people they are perverts!?!? when Jesus walked this earth is this what he would say to people when He talked with them?!?!? maybe you should look up some verses on love in the Bible. you seem no better than the kkk after my reading your comment!! some of them said and did things to people that didn't seem normal in thier eyes. i for one hope the life style is taken to be more normal so i don't have to worry that i will see my son and son-in-law in a hospital bed or in a casket because someone didn't like them and thought they were perverts and decided in the name of God they shouldn't have the right to live!!!! you do not seem to be a very nice person by coming on to my sons blog and commenting the impolite way you are doing so. i think you should repent on your name calling! well, now i am angry and i should thank you anon for this since i clean my house so good when i am angry but than if i thank you i might be kind. love and prayers to you jason
Mom, I find it hilarious that you think my comment about your son's perversion is impolite, but the f-bomb dropped by Dar is not. And I, too would hate to see your son (or anyone elses son for that matter) in a casket because someone "in the name of God" killed him for being gay (which is a perversion according to the word of God)- that would truly be a tragedy and no true Christian would want that to happen. But, your son's "boyfriend" is not your son-in-law - I dont know what Bible you read or what state you live in, but according to my Bible and the laws of this land - this guy is not your son-in-law (that implies that there is a legal marriage). Also, I think it is important for you to realize that the lifestyle of which you speak is not normal - in the eyes of God. I sympathize with your fears of losing your child (what parent wouldnt?), but the fact is that the Bible is clear on homosexuality - it is wrong. And for you to hope that it is seen as normal makes me question which Bible you read. I know he is your son, but that does not make it right. And while you dont believe I am a nice person, thats okay - God knows my heart and my heart breaks for you because of your sons unrepentance and as a Christian I want to see everyone come to faith in Christ - that includes your son. I am sorry to have upset you, but the truth is the truth and your son does not know the Truth. It is a difficult pill to swallow, I am sure, but you do your son a great disservice with your appeasement and acceptance of his lifestyle CHOICE. I hate to be thought of as rude or impolite, but at least I helped you in your cleaning efforts.
Oh, dear, Anon, are you paddling up the wrong creek--and dare I say, quite paddleless...
I know my mom will respond all in good time, but I’d like to touch on some of the things you feel so pompously right about, okay?
First off, you said: Mom, I find it hilarious that you think my comment about your son's perversion is impolite, but the f-bomb dropped by Dar is not.
You should look again: Darkmind dropped the so-called "f-bomb," not Dar (and they are two very different people). This, of course, could simply be an oversight (although if you employ these same powers of observation when reading your holy book, I know why you are such a pompous ass...)
You said: And I, too would hate to see your son (or anyone else’s son for that matter) in a casket because someone "in the name of God" killed him for being gay
Oh, look someone's heart grew three sizes that day!
But then you said: (which is a perversion according to the word of God)
In god's old word (a severely outdated model, if I do say so myself). In that same book in the so-called "holy" bible, as I mentioned previously, it also uses the same word of "abomination" for:
adultery (Lev 18:20), sex with animals (Lev 18:23), remarrying one's wife after she's had another husband in between (Deut 24:4), or approaching any woman and humming "Strangers in the Night" during the time of her "uncleanness" (Lev 18:19). Cross-dressing is out (Deut 22:5), and that includes Halloween costumes, slacks on women, bib overalls on little girls, or a wife wearing her husband's favorite Oxford button-down. And more on button-downs in a moment.
Other abominations include tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope, trimming one's beard, and getting a tattoo, even if it says, "Mom" (Lev 19:26-28). Haughty eyes (Prov 6:17) and telling lies (Prov 6:17, 12:22) are big abominations. Being untruthful also includes false weights and measures (Prov 11:1), or any other dishonesty in business. "Everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Prov 11:16).
What do abominators have for dinner? Rare steaks off the grill (Lev 17:10), Lobster Newburg at the Krebs and crab cakes in Baltimore (Lev 11:10), a rack of ribs at the Dinosaur Bar-B-Que (Lev 11:7).
But abominations are not just about bodily functions. Charging or paying interest are abominations. Bankers and anyone with a mortgage, car loan or credit card debt will be unavailable to throw the first stone, regardless of the interest rate (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10).
Graven images of other gods are an abomination (Deut 7:25). Thus the Happy Buddha on my dresser would excuse me from taking the lead in rock throwing, if I hadn't already fallen by the wayside.
My personal favorite abomination is wearing blended fabrics. Deuteronomy 22:11 forbids wearing a material made of wool and linen, but Leviticus 19:19 says it's an abomination to wear any blended material, period. Hence a woman in a man's button-down can be doubly abominable if it's a no-iron, easy care blend of cotton and polyester.
Of course, when confronted with such information, there are people who will tell you that the blended fabrics abomination is really just a symbolic warning that Jews should not mix with other cultures, and that the dietary laws were set aside for Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem, and that these "other abominations" were about self-preservation, hygiene and just for Orthodox Jews anyway. In short, when something they do is shown to be an abomination, many abominators become instant anthropologists, Biblical scholars and historians as well.
So why do active abominators continue to refer to the Bible when condemning homosexuals? Are such men and women unaware of their own abominations detailed in the same scriptures? Or are they simply counting on their audience being unaware?
For myself, I am sure that people of integrity, once informed of their own abominable behavior, will step into the circle and accept for themselves whatever punishment they were going to hand out to others. "Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) So since you're so eager to throw stones (and let's remember, also from your holy book, "He who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7), think about what you had for dinner, what you're wearing, the interest on your mortgage, if you've ever "known" a women (or, if you're a women, a man) during your "unclean period, or any other host of "abominations that you are guilty of in your holy book...
You said: that would truly be a tragedy and no true Christian would want that to happen.
You play holy spirit now, too? Or is that just your costume for Halloween?
You said: But, your son's "boyfriend" is not your son-in-law.
Give it time, fundie, give it time. The law of the land (which isn't the bible, I hasten to remind you) will grant marriage equality soon enough--what will be your excuse then?
You said: I don’t know what Bible you read or what state you live in, but according to my Bible and the laws of this land - this guy is not your son-in-law (that implies that there is a legal marriage).
Actually, in Massachusetts it is the law of the land. Will be soon in California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and some others. Of course, then the 14th amendment (which already should have kicked into place) will be enforced by the courts (which is their job, to uphold the fourteenth amendment), and my husband and I will be given a piece of paper. That piece of paper will allow us to make medical decisions for each other, leave our belongings to one another tax-free, receive each others social security benefits... a host of things a good deal of married straight people take for granted...
You said: Also, I think it is important for you to realize that the lifestyle of which you speak is not normal
You have yet to define that...
You said: in the eyes of God.
I think we've covered what your god hates already--are you gonna to stand there and tell us you haven't "committed" and of the "abominations"? And you suddenly know the heart and mind of god, do you? You right up there at the right hand, smiting those you see "abominating?"
You said: I sympathize with your fears of losing your child (what parent wouldn’t?), but the fact is that the Bible is clear on homosexuality - it is wrong.
Hmm, if it's so clearly wrong, why is there so much debate? You mean, not everyone reads it the same way you do? Good golly Miss Molly! You mean, several different people can read the same sentence and get two different meanings? Clear is a piece of glass... Clear is not what you think it is as you stare into a mud puddle...
You said: And for you to hope that it is seen as normal makes me question which Bible you read.
Of course, because you have the one true copy, right?
You: I know he is your son, but that does not make it right.
But it makes you right?
You: And while you don’t believe I am a nice person, that’s okay - God knows my heart
If god existed, that might be possible, but right now you’re batting a thousand...
You: and my heart breaks for you because of your sons unrepentance and as a Christian I want to see everyone come to faith in Christ
Calling people "perverts" is a great way to start a conversation, wouldn't you agree? Why, just the other day I saw a person playing football in the park, and I cried, "Touching that ball is an ABOMINATION! REPENT AND GET TO CHURCH, HEATHENS!, and let me tell you, they all came to know the lord and thanked me for my insightfulness into their sinful ways... Praise Jesus!
You: that includes your son.
Aww... Ain't you a sweetie!
You: I am sorry to have upset you, but the truth is the truth and your son does not know the Truth.
Everyone, EVERYONE! That's right, quiet down... Someone here knows the Truth! Seriously, he capitalized it and everything! So you've managed to find "the truth" when humanity has been seeking it for millions of years? Wow, never did I think my blog could be graced by such... Pride? Self-righteousness? Conceit? Arrogance? Hmm, what's the word?
You: It is a difficult pill to swallow, I am sure, but you do your son a great disservice with your appeasement and acceptance of his lifestyle CHOICE.
Boy, are you lost without a map!
1. My mother and father constantly start each sentence with, "You know we don't agree with this"... And then they proceed to give their point of view about any controversial subject any of their five kids might be involved in. They give their opinion, hear ours, and then we move on. They've moved on...
2. It is a choice to be OPEN and not LIE about the fact that I am gay. Would you rather I lie? Destroy a woman's life, and perhaps our future children's? Maybe you liked it better when I was feeling suicidal and depressed because sky god wouldn't "fix" me. That must have been the "joy of the lord" I hear you fundie nut balls talking about all the time, yeah?
You: I hate to be thought of as rude or impolite, but at least I helped you in your cleaning efforts.
Hmm, maybe if you didn't start conversations slinging around "pervert," you might get somewhere, eh? Ad mom would be cleaning anyway... Trust me on that one. God told me so. While he was playing a game of chess with Satan, in which you were the Black King and I was the White Queen...
Funny, your pawns didn't look so happy... Dreams are funny that way, aren't they?
Good luck weeding the abominations out of your life. Then maybe you'll have some standing on other's people's so-called "abominations." Until then, you're just a hypocrite too afraid to put his name on his words. God must be so proud!
anon: laws or not they are still together soooooooo what do you think i should do? i could get mad and not talk to my sinner son like so many people do and act like he never existed or i could call him a pervert everytime i talk with him!! what do you think i should really do?? he knows i think he is wrong in his lifestyle and i have alot of other family members who do sinnful things all the time so maybe i should call them up and call them some choice names. i know a young man that got kicked out of his family because he was gay and finally he missed them so much that he lied to them so he could get back in his families good graces. so now who do you want to call the worst sinner here?? i will continue to treat my gay son as a person that God made him and will talk with Him about the love of God and PRAY for him and other family members that need prayer just as much as my son and my sons friend. is that better. if we dress up our words a bit does it make it easier to deal with it all?? the God i worship is dear to me and i do read the Bible almost everyday and i listen to sermons and just because i choose to not call other people harsh words while telling them about the love of God doesn't make me wrong on how i am dealing with my son and his 'friend'. in each bump in the road God gives me i do try to see how He would have me treat the bumps. i also had an uncle that got kicked out of our so called church going family and all the ugly things that happened after that with family things was not pretty and i said when i was just a young mother i would never never never talk down or kick any of my kids out of the family for any reason!!! you can tell the truth about things of God without being ugly and disagree with people without calling names. i could go on about things why i am very upset when a person that says he or she is a christian and comes out with words that put people down. i will go back to what i asked you earlier is that the way Jesus had people come to Him? did He talk down to the woman at the well? think of the names we could call her?? thank you jason for your blogs. your blog is being used in a very special way i feel. love and prayers jason
Well, mom, I suppose you could try to kick me out, but what would you people do without me? :)
Jason, you can twist anything to fit your own purpose. You seem to be an expert at it. You are right, I am a sinner - we all are. The difference is this: I am a sinner that has been saved by grace and I repent of my sins daily. No matter how you spin it - homosexuality is wrong in the sight of God. Sorry, but its true. And the "skygod" cant fix you ---the one true God can and you have to trust Him to do it - try it.
Mom, you are right, you should never disown your child for any reason, but your comment about "son-in-law" makes it seem that you condone his behavior. And yes, with the woman at well, Jesus told her the truth - you have had five husbands and the man you are with now is not your husband - that was brutal honesty -I am sure she didnt want to hear it but it was true. Just like your son doesnt want to hear that he is living in sin, but that doesnt make it true. My point is walk the walk and talk the talk, but calling the man that lives with your son "son-in-law" is not appropriate when trying to witness to your lost son. Just my opinion.
Dont worry Jason, I will not be wasting my time returning to this blog, because I believe you completely unwilling to admit that you may be wrong and that there may be another way of looking at things and there actually is a God who cares for you, who made you and wants you to come to Him. There will come a time when the Holy Spririt will be queneched an will no longer try to bring you to repentance. Dont wait until its too late. You are not only grieving the Holy Spirit but your mother as well.
You disappoint me... just like all the other fundies, you avoid the issues, say I'm twisting things, and say you won't be back...
Still making sky god proud, I'm sure...
How do you use the bible to condemn the homosexuality but not all the other issues I brought up? You brought the verse, I brought along the rest of it, keeping it within context of not only levitical law and it's other prhibitions, but other portions of the bible also considered "abominations," and "I'm an expert at twisting"?
Very nice. Typical and sad...
You didn't bring up a rational discussion. You say "pervert" and call me wrong, so I discuss your points, and you walk away, and I'm unwilling to admit that there may be another side.
You fundies wouldn't know the "other" side if it was water and you were in a boat...
Wow, Jason, I can always count on your blog for an interesting read. I think what Anon is saying is for the most part true, but maybe the wording is not so "sweet sounding". You know my feeling on homosexuality (ie. Romans 1:26-27, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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."
Corinthians 6:9-10:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." )
You cant deny that the New Testament also says that homosexuality is a sin. It isnt just an Old Testament thing.
I agree with your mom though. I could never turn my back on one of my children no matter what they have done, what they do, or what wrong choices they make. She is right to continue to let you know she doesnt approve of your lifestyle choice, but love you at the same time. What mother could turn their back on their own flesh and blood? A terrible mother. You should thank God (well, as soon as you start believing in Him again) that you have a mother who is willing to be patient with you even though she doesnt understand or agree with your choices. No Christian mom wants to see her son die without Jesus - be patient with her as well - it is a difficult thing for a mother to understand. Oh yeah, remember that all of us "fundies" are not as "blunt" as Anon and a few of us even have a great sense of humor and are fun to be around (and I aint too bad looking either - hahahaha). Have a great night!
Hey, Beth welcome back!
I know not all fundies are like Anon... My mom, you, and Steve are just some examples of fundies whom I respect and can have a rational discussion with...
And I know it ain't all OT, and that the NT has some things to say about the subject. Those posts are still in process as I study what Paul and Luke and Peter actually had to say and within the proper context's, and it seems (especially Paul) was most concerned with temple practices and rituals for the most part (child prostitution, male and female prostitution), but it's still a work in progress... But rest assured, while I know we will disagree on a lot, and I know we often come to different conclusions, I appreciate the civility you bring and the spirit in which you bring it... Fundies out of concern, whether I think it warranted or not, is much better to talk with and discuss than fundieisms of judgment and hypocrisy....
And, as a side note, I'd be interested in your take on the other abominations of the bible, and your take on why the "homosexual" verses are still used as justification, but most other "abominations" are not... :)
On a more personal note concerning the parents, I'm at peace with them not agreeing (or however you want to phrase it) with my life. It's my life. Their's is their's. And while it was upsetting for a while the turmoil I brought to the family, we are all more close, and more open with one another, than I feel we ever have been, and are a closer, better family for it.
Hope you have a great weekend to!
I am not sure what you mean about my take on 'why the "homosexual" verses are still used as justification, but most other "abominations" are not'. I am not sure I understand exactly what you are asking, so tell me if I am totally oblivious here. Are you asking why homosexuality is still considered sin in the NT but eating pork isnt? If not, just disregard the rest of this comment and call me crazy (well, crazier than you originally thought).
My take on the whole Leviticus thing is this: God made the laws against eating animals with cloven hooves because of issues with disease. He told women not to have sexual relations while they were "unclean" because of disease. Boys were circumcised on the 8th day because that is when the blood clots most efficiently. All the laws in the Old Testament concerning touching the dead, touching women who are bleeding, eating pork, etc. etc. were laws that were handed down for the protection of God's people.
As you probably already know, other laws that were made by the Scribes and Pharisees (keeping your ox in the ditch, eating with sinners, etc) were laws that Jesus died to save us from. Jesus death and resurrection means that we dont live under the law (the dont eat pork laws AND the dont get your ox out of the ditch on Sunday laws) anymore - it means we live under grace. The reality is that we didnt deserve for Jesus to die for us, but He did it so we could live forever. Grace means that I am forgiven even though I am a rotten miserable sinner by nature because Jesus' blood covers those sins since I asked Him into my heart.
I am not doing a great job answering this question (could be because I am extremely tired - I have been on the go since about 6 am this morning and I feel the crash coming on).
If that wasnt what you were asking, I am sorry. I am a little slow tonight, so you might have to elaborate for me a little bit. I dont want you to think I am dancing around your question.
Sleep well - I know I will (I'm almost asleep as we speak).
Well... not exactly, but I probably wasn't too clear myself, so...
We'll just wait until we hop onto this subject again, shall we? Maybe tomorrow sometime I'll try to clarify or something...
anon-you really miss the point of how to let someone know they are a sinner without hitting them over the head with a 2 by 4! my mother-in-law was a wonderful Christian woman and she always said in cases like she had to face with her kids (she had 4 and they were all pk's and i married the l) you should chew a lot bubble gum. some people you can hit over the head but it doesn't always work to well. speak softly and carry a big stick. CALLING PEOPLE PERVERTS is not how to do it!!!! get the point?? i also have ALOT of faith that God will turn my son around along with his 'friend'. did you ever think that some things need more prayer and as a Christian be someone who people can talk with. calling rich my son-in-law is more of a loving term than calling him my pervert-in-law i think. why don't you try praying for people who you feel are not living for God. a little less calling names and listening to what some of these gay men and women go through. my prayers i know don't go unheard and my son and his 'friend' knows where we stand on our beliefs. i always said my kids are my missionary project. i guess i am typing this in the wind since i think you said you are not coming back to this site. how do you know how to pray for anyone if you don't explore the other side? just think you might be my neighbor in heaven and we can talk more!! isn't that a hoot!! :) anon i do hope you come back since jason does make some good points and to me its a growing experince. love and prayers
anon-you really miss the point of how to let someone know they are a sinner without hitting them over the head with a 2 by 4! my mother-in-law was a wonderful Christian woman and she always said in cases like she had to face with her kids (she had 4 and they were all pk's and i married the l) you should chew a lot bubble gum. some people you can hit over the head but it doesn't always work to well. speak softly and carry a big stick. CALLING PEOPLE PERVERTS is not how to do it!!!! get the point?? i also have ALOT of faith that God will turn my son around along with his 'friend'. did you ever think that some things need more prayer and as a Christian be someone who people can talk with. calling rich my son-in-law is more of a loving term than calling him my pervert-in-law i think. why don't you try praying for people who you feel are not living for God. a little less calling names and listening to what some of these gay men and women go through. my prayers i know don't go unheard and my son and his 'friend' knows where we stand on our beliefs. i always said my kids are my missionary project. i guess i am typing this in the wind since i think you said you are not coming back to this site. how do you know how to pray for anyone if you don't explore the other side? just think you might be my neighbor in heaven and we can talk more!! isn't that a hoot!! :) anon i do hope you come back since jason does make some good points and to me its a growing experince. love and prayers
I am not sure what you mean about my take on 'why the "homosexual" verses are still used as justification, but most other "abominations" are not'. I am not sure I understand exactly what you are asking, so tell me if I am totally oblivious here. Are you asking why homosexuality is still considered sin in the NT but eating pork isnt? If not, just disregard the rest of this comment and call me crazy (well, crazier than you originally thought).
My take on the whole Leviticus thing is this: God made the laws against eating animals with cloven hooves because of issues with disease. He told women not to have sexual relations while they were "unclean" because of disease. Boys were circumcised on the 8th day because that is when the blood clots most efficiently. All the laws in the Old Testament concerning touching the dead, touching women who are bleeding, eating pork, etc. etc. were laws that were handed down for the protection of God's people.
As you probably already know, other laws that were made by the Scribes and Pharisees (keeping your ox in the ditch, eating with sinners, etc) were laws that Jesus died to save us from. Jesus death and resurrection means that we dont live under the law (the dont eat pork laws AND the dont get your ox out of the ditch on Sunday laws) anymore - it means we live under grace. The reality is that we didnt deserve for Jesus to die for us, but He did it so we could live forever. Grace means that I am forgiven even though I am a rotten miserable sinner by nature because Jesus' blood covers those sins since I asked Him into my heart.
I am not doing a great job answering this question (could be because I am extremely tired - I have been on the go since about 6 am this morning and I feel the crash coming on).
If that wasnt what you were asking, I am sorry. I am a little slow tonight, so you might have to elaborate for me a little bit. I dont want you to think I am dancing around your question.
Sleep well - I know I will (I'm almost asleep as we speak).
Wow, Jason, I can always count on your blog for an interesting read. I think what Anon is saying is for the most part true, but maybe the wording is not so "sweet sounding". You know my feeling on homosexuality (ie. Romans 1:26-27, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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."
Corinthians 6:9-10:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." )
You cant deny that the New Testament also says that homosexuality is a sin. It isnt just an Old Testament thing.
I agree with your mom though. I could never turn my back on one of my children no matter what they have done, what they do, or what wrong choices they make. She is right to continue to let you know she doesnt approve of your lifestyle choice, but love you at the same time. What mother could turn their back on their own flesh and blood? A terrible mother. You should thank God (well, as soon as you start believing in Him again) that you have a mother who is willing to be patient with you even though she doesnt understand or agree with your choices. No Christian mom wants to see her son die without Jesus - be patient with her as well - it is a difficult thing for a mother to understand. Oh yeah, remember that all of us "fundies" are not as "blunt" as Anon and a few of us even have a great sense of humor and are fun to be around (and I aint too bad looking either - hahahaha). Have a great night!
Post a Comment