The Southern Baptist Convention and Homosexuality

It's unfortunate that the Dominionist conservatives wrested control of the Southern Baptist Convention two decades ago. Demonizing homosexuals are a top priority with that bunch now, right up there with throwing out the concept of separation of church and state.

It's doubly unfortunate, in my opinion, that all the moderate Christians in the world won't convince the SBC to change it's mind. They aren't going to just meekly back down when confronted with the error of their ways. They're convinced that they are so very, very RIGHT, and to back down is to let Evil win.

They do not consider Jesus' call to love their neighbor and to have compassion for everyone, or to "judge not." Apparently, those things are irrelevant to leading godly lives.

Hey yall, I found this site by surfing the bbc news online (At work no less..shhhhh). I have to say in a general sense i was really happy to see that i was not the only one "out there" who was feeling and thinking that present day Christian dogma had gone awry, especially with some of the policies of this (Bush) administrationa and its so called "neo-con" supporters. As a crude joke (i'll share here reluctantly) i kept joking to my wife that i think we need to rescue Christianity (the faith) from the white man...(heehee blush), Because the more i learn and the more questions i ask (concerning) the basic tenets of the faith and its application to our every day "dilemmas" in life, it seems to me like the "original" spirit of the gospel of Christ is just lost in the mix of political and social agendas by this group or that. Of course by now its plain that i'm not white :) heehee...Seriously though i'm not "Racially" biased, i couldn't be that way and be able to call my self an truly "enlightened christian". But i think that if we had some real intellectual honesty here, there has to be some admitted philosophical and theological "bias" about certain issues and points of dogma.
(Some Pre-emption)Let me just say plainly that I have no political or social agenda to promote here, as i belong to no "denomination" and i am not alligned or affiliated with any "political party", and i certainly am pass the age of promoting my ego...at least i think/hope so (by the grace of JAH). So its with no ulterior motive or acrimony that i have to express my " biased" opinion about the "Homo-sexual" agenda as its being promoted here. In truth i half expected to run into it on this site because of that gulp"Liberal" feel to it, so i was not too surprised to see it here: But any way, real quick like: my position: I don't know or can quote any scientific study that says absolutely that homo-sexuality is "Natural", and my reasoning cannot wrap around the notion that "Nature" sanctions it either, as it does not fulfill the "Prime-Directive" (i.e. the propagation of the human species" or any species for that matter) at least not as far as i can deduce... so to me that qualifies it as "Un-natural" .
And if that was not enough the very words of the "Book" that we christians say is our guide "inspired" by JAH (i.e The Holy Bible), says plainly that it is not acceptable practice or behaviour, hence that would make it "Unholy" in whichever religious language (weather Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) you choose to put it in.
However, having said "All" that, As a Christian, and a honset one i hope, i cannot deny that homo-sexuality exists (its been round a looong time) as have all kinds of other "sin" too, but as a "Christian" i cannot condemn or curse anyone who is of that inclination as i understand that it is not my "Office" as a Christian to judge anyone, but instead to help, guide, and bless them..But it is my duty to call out "Contrary" notions when i see them (certainly to get them "Delivered"),and Homo-sexuality by the measures previously stated is contrary (to both Nature and to the Faith).
Well, so what? you may ask, what's your point? :) The point i think i'm trying to make is that since it is "Contrary" to christian "values"...(oops beginning to sound like a neo-con here) it is psychologically and theologically dis-honest to try and wrap the acceptance of the homo-sexual lifestyle or behaviour in the cloak of "liberal Christianity" just to show that we are more understanding or "Tolerant". This behaviour to me is akin to tearing down the "old landmarks" which we as christians are admonished not to do.
So i say pray for our homo-sexual brothers and sisters in the faith that they will be "delivered" from the bonds of un-natural and inordinate affections, and not condemn them, because "Lord knows" I/we aint perfect either" (blush), but by the same token i'm not going to morph some sinful/contary behaviour of mine into a lifestyle, and then try to ease some of my conscience by trying to then wrap it in the banner of my faith to Justify it. (We must call things out for what they are, just like we are calling out the Bush administration on its policies and their "Hijacking" of the faith to confuse and divide people...In the name of God no less (Karl Rove have some repenting to do)). To do anything else is engaging in psychological double talk not to mention spiritual hypocracy with our selves. This is not just unhealthy for us , but also for those who would listen to us...and this in the end will render us "inept and ineffective" in living out our faith.
-Till next time...I say may God bless us all (seriously), and that we truly honour him by loving one another.
God Bless,
-Al

"Let the words of our mouths and the meditations of our Hearts be acceptable in your sight O JAH our strength and our redeemer..selah"

Brother Al: I read your comments with interest. I appreciate your honesty, which the world could use a little more of these days. I've been a life long Presbyterian, and we have struggled with the issue of the ordination of gays and lesbians for a few decades now.

I myself believe that God loves and accepts all of us, for WHO WE ARE, not who we might become (although certainly we would all work to become more like Christ). Personally, if someone is so committed to the Lord that they wish to pursue ordination in the Presbyterian Church USA (which, by the way, requires both an undergraduate college degree and a 3-year, full-time Masters of Divinity degree), I'm not sure where the sexual orientation litmus test comes into play. It's not included in the 10 Commandments, and especially not in the 2 greatest (love God, love neighbor). We don't ask folks if they have ever lied, cheated on their taxes, stolen anything from anyone ever in their lives, been an adulterer/adulteress, or even taken the Lord's name in vain.

Therefore, where in the world would I get off asking someone who they would prefer sleeping with? I believe there's a lot more homophobia and a lot less Christian faith involved in this particular divisive issue.

But, I digress. For it is not for me to judge, but to love and learn. Learn to live with my brothers and sisters, learn to try to understand others' viewpoints half as well as I proclaim my own, learn to accept the fact that I am not here for myself, or my beliefs, but that I am here for others, to serve others as He once did (and still does, through the faith-works of every true Christian). You see, Brother Al, life ends up being way too short to determine whether other folks have lived the way God intends - my goal is get my life in order within the short time that I have in THIS world, so that I may prepare my soul for the NEXT world. Amen? Amen.

Dear Rev. Jeff: I've been a presbyterian all of my life as well. The pastor who served at my home church (I'm in college now) almost left the PCUSA because of the injustice of the homosexual issue but decided to stay and work within the system to change it. I'm greatful to see that there are more of us who believe the same thing. If only everyone in the christian and presbyterian community specifically could see what you've written.

And Al, I found this via BBC as well. I like to think that if even if I am getting a bias in the news, its a little less harmful to be an external one than an internal one.

The more I acquanit myself with the going ons in the Anglican Church, the ELCA, the Methodists, and the SBC, the more I see the absolute need for change from within. All of these churches have built up huge walls on the issue of gay and lesbians, any attempt to confront them from the outside is easily rejected. When change comes from the inside, when bishops and council members start getting elected who are supportive of gays and lesbians, then change can happen.

When no amount of work from either the outside or the inside is possible, I think that schism isn't so bad an option. It is, admittedly, very disappointing when it must happen, but as I study the history of the split of the Presbyterian church over the issue of slavery, the more I think that it is a viable option.

Folks - I didn't choose to be homosexual. I can't think of anyone who would willingly take on the cross of being the object of hatred and bigotry. And if that's unnatural (because I can't procreate the species and continue to overpopulate the world, while millions of kids cry out to be adopted), then I'd love to know why God made infertile people.

Dr James Nicholas
Liberal-who's-conservative
Eastern Orthodox Christian
Firefighter

I am thrilled to have found christians who are committed to following Christ's teaching and loving example. I too have cried as I have heard far too many speak hate, judgement, and greed in the name of christianity for political gain.

On the right of our gay citizens to form loving relationships and provide secure families, I have been horrified to hear too many speak of outlawing the option in the name of protecting family values.

On aid to the poor, I have been completely boggled by far too many screaming to withdraw all assistence in the name of compassion.

Finally, here, I have found voices ready to sound off on Christ's teachings, on christian compassion, on christian humility, and on reaching out with open arms and loving hearts without regard for payback.

May the good Lord bless you. Let's take back loving christianity and let the hate worshippers be seen for what they are. I pray that their hearts will be opened and that they will find their way back.

Darlene

Hi Rev Jeff, and Valerie,
I just had to check the site this morning to see if anyone out there really reads this stuff :-)
Its interesting that the first responders were Presbyterians, because i was planning to bring up the point about the "Gay" bishop as an example of the confusion that can germinate when we slip into spiritual and theological hypocrisy. Personally i could'nt understand why it was such an issue about his ordination...to me it was obvious that he should NOT have been ordained.
Let me see if i can explain while responding to your comments. (Some more pre-emption) Like you I also believe that God loves us (All)...but i'm not clear about what you mean by no matter WHO WE ARE. Are you saying that God will love us even if we "Are" Gay? well yes i do agree he still loves us, but i think "Inspite" of it (i.e not in tacit acceptance of it): here's why...remember by my previous arguments being gay or living the gay lifestyle is a sin or to be consistent, un-natural and un-holy. If i'm to remain true to this position, and if i'm to understand what The Christ was trying to teach us. It is that we should love the sinner and try to deliver, and guide them away or out from it, but to Hate the sin as he indeed "Hates" the sin...which in this case would be the un-holy and un-natural practice of homo-sexuality. Remember the woman caught in adultry? Did Jesus hate her or her sin? Did he even condemn her?
Now here is where some of the hypocrisy starts, often times when someone makes statements like this it sounds "patronizing" and too much like a sound-bite, certainly cliche'...and hence not really listened to, but it is the TRUTH. Last time i checked i was told that man was not condemned, but that sin was condemned and condemned "In the Flesh". So its pointless for me to be wasting spiritual and psychological energy hating the sinner, i ought to spend it hating the sin, after all i also remember that as "Spiritual" people we are fighting not flesh and blood but "principalities and powers and spirtual foolishness/wickedness" in the spiritual realm/s.
Did i sound like i digressed, well not really because it brings me to your next point i wanted to comment on: I believe whole heartedly that there are christians with homo-sexual inclinations who are devoutly seeking the spirit of truth and trying to walk a more honest Christian life, but you were not sure where the sexual orientation litmus test comes into play as a qualifier amongst all the other "sins" you pointed out.

Well here's my spin on that: You are correct in that you think it ought not to be such a big deal, but lets look honestly at why it is for a moment. Lets consider one of the other "sin/s" you mentioned ...say "adultery". This seems obvious as un-acceptable as a holy practice (although some may argue its quite natural). But lets say a confessed adulterer decides to proclaim to the church that he is an adulterer and he has no plans to change ...in fact he has finally accepted his/her inclinations and decided to "incorporate it" into a lifestyle. Now he wants his church family to accept it. Immediately you would consider this a barefaced afront to the faith (After much controversy among the bretheren every one decides to pray and work and even counsel the brother)...but wait it gets better, he's now proclaiming to the church that "God" has called him to minister to the people.

Immediately everyone would agree that that wont or should'nt happen untill he renouces his "lifestyle" as an adulterer, Why? because his newly adopted lifestyle choice is in-conflict with ministering to a Christian church because you cannot be a double (agent) representative to be associating the adulterous lifestyle and Christianity which is diametrically opposed to it at the same time: You simply cant serve two masters. By doing so you are creating an Un-Holy alliance. This "evil"spritual alliance is something we as professing Christians should be sensitive towards. WE should immediatly see it for what it is "Nonsense" and theological psycho-babble. Spiritual double-speak with our selves... IT is precisely why this issue is such a big deal and so divisive.
By him proclaiming that he is "Gay" and at the same time proclaiming himself as Christ representative, or a minister of the faith for which his lifestyle is so in-compatible with, he is engaging in spiritual if not psychological corruption.
I mean, is it because we are all not yet decided that homosexuality is actually a "sin" why we can't call it ?
As i have stated previously it is this kind of behaviour that will/ and is rendering us inept and in-effective in our individual ministries.

Again till next time. I don't think i got to make my point very well in such limited space/time, but i hope you got the gist.

"Who JAH Bless no man can curse...selah"
-Al

Homosexuality is condemned, in the bible, largely in Leviticus i believe. How much of Leviticus do we still follow? Frankly, very little.

Homosexuality is decried there as an "abomination". Do you know what other thing is decried similarly as an abomination? Eating shellfish. And yet, no one tries to condemn anyone these days for eating shellfish. But it is right there in Leviticus!

On the topic of what you may and may not eat, Jesus said that "It is not what goes into your mouth that makes you unholy, but what comes out of it." Perhaps, if i may be crude for a moment, the sexual organs may be considered things that, going into the body, do not make it unholy in the same way that shellfish do not? But rather, it is the practice of hate, or dishonesty, or injustice that makes you unholy.

adultery is a sin, yes, and why is that? Because it is dishonest. Because i make a promise to my wife to be faithful, and in breaking it, i break my word, and her heart as well -- i do her real harm. I think homosexual sex is not the same...no one is harmed by it, unless you believe that, like shellfish, it makes you unclean in God's eyes. But once again, i quote the bible:

(Cor 6:9-10) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. "

So while the 'effeminate' are uncluded in this list, they are alongside the fornicators, the idolators, the drunkards, the covetous. And yet, do you believe that drinking will cause you to be denied heaven? That premarital or extra-marital sex, or sex for purposes other than procreation, which is fornication, will do so?

If you do not believe so, then do not condemn your brother either, and if you do believe so, then judge with the same judgement as you judge the rest.

And frankly, i'd bet good money that the 'effeminate' in that passage is a later addition, and not what Jesus actually said. But i'm a bit unorthodox in my bible reading.

Soooo many good points here, but no time to get to them now (sigh).

But just briefly, I'll give my thoughts later on what Nicholas has said and i like Zenji's mind :) Its the mark of a "thinker", we don't find too many of them around anymore (I've of ten said to my wife that you know who are the thinkers because they are always asking the tough questions), either everyone else has the answers already and have not been kind in sharing them with the rest of us, or they simply just don't have an opinion because they have not actually "thought about it". In anycase Like you i'm a bit "un-orthodox" in my Bible reading as well. Hopefully this will come out as i try to respond to some of your remarks. (Like you i'm always looking for the TRUTH)

ps: The truth is i still have tons of questions myself about the Bible (King James) and even some of the current Christian dogma as its being propageted in our society today.

God bless (Y'all),
-Al

I'm in complete agreement with Zenji.

I went to seek out just exactly are the words that condemn homosexuality in the bible. And I found them in Leviticus in very close proximity to words saying that a woman is unclean when she menstruates. And about proper methods of animal sacrifice.

A Jewish person keeping Kosher won't eat shellfish. And of course we're discussing the issue of condemning homosexuality which plenty of people feel they can do. But I bet neither of these, even the someone biggest literal interpretationist, doesn't expect any of us to be bring doves or fatted calfs to church for ritual slaughter. Maybe some people still think that women are unclean during their periods but they aren't preaching to the country about that. Because that would alienate more than half of the population. It would be saying that more than fifty percent of Americans are physically in a state of unholiness.
It's a lot easier for them to condemn a minority group who according to strict interpretation are biologically sinful. They're sinful in a way that they can't help. Just as a healthy woman can't help having her period.

I can't imagine being gay and a Christian in these times when the current earthly dogma is bent on bringing you down and trying to deny you the salvation that Christ died to give us.
I do know what it feels like to be a Christian woman though. Even today in some places I've been told that as a woman I can't speak in church the way a man can or that a husband is naturally in charge of his wife and has dominance over her as it was decreed in the Bible. And you can find passages in the Bible that do say these things. Reading them can be very difficult for me. But deep down I know that Jesus was speaking with woman and helping them in a time when no one else would.
I'm not claiming to know what its like to be homosexual and Christian, I can't fathom how difficult it must be. I know that its infinitely easier to find other Christians who respect me as an equal despite my sex. I am trying to understand though and empathize.

I checked Corinthians in my NRSV and I don't have effeminate but male prostitutes and sodomites which is entirely another matter.
One could say since Corinthians is one of the Epistles these words weren't actually spoken Jesus. None of the gospels mention him discussing homosexuality. At least to my knowledge he doesn't.
I like to think he was a little too preoccupied with loving his neighbor and questioning the authority of hypocritical leaders to be concerned with that particular issue.

I do not support ideological authorities that direct followers to think, believe and expect that while a good one in Heaven ruled Earth in beginning and a good one in Heaven will rule Earth again in future, at present and on into the unforeseeable future an evil one cast down from Heaven rules over Earth. In my mind, belief that an evil one cast down from Heaven rules over Earth in present would lead me to think, believe and expect that self is evil, earth is evil and present is evil. I believe such ideas produce low esteem of self and world and powerful emotional responses of sad sorrow, mad fear, and bad anger.

I recognize that many others do support such ideological authorities. I believe this came about because state survival, individual survival and survival of ideological traditions are symbiotic in relationship. If a state succeeds then individuals within that successful state have a greater chance of succeeding. If a state fails then individuals within that failed state would have a greater chance of failing. Maybe ideological traditions that aggressively catered to states need and aspiration to survive by motivating communities of faithful believers to out work, out fight, and out number competitors survived. Maybe ideological traditions that were passive about motivating communities of faithful believers to out work, out fight and out number competitors were sacrificed. Maybe some through study of history eventually caught on to symbiotic relationship between survival of individual, survival of state and survival of ideological traditions. Maybe aggressive ideological traditions became popular. Maybe passive ideological traditions became unpopular. Maybe ideological traditions that include the myth of a good one in Heaven at war with an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth have been effective in motivating communities of faithful believers to out number, out work, and out fight the rest of the world and have aggressively catered to the need and aspiration of the state to survive. Maybe some ideological authorities lead communities of faithful believers to believe that the will of their good one is revealed to special people that ideological authorities proclaim to be messengers of a good one. Maybe some believe that these messengers of a good one lived a long time ago and claim to know the will of a good one in Heaven based on exclusive divine revelations. Maybe some believe these exclusive divine revelations of the discovery, will, words and laws of a good one were written down in a sacred scrolls. Maybe some believe that these sacred scrolls explain to communities of faithful believers how after life a good one in Heaven decides who will be judged good and rewarded with transport to heaven and divine eternal bliss in bodies of perfect form and function and who will be judged evil and sent to hell with abominable infernal punishment of torment. Maybe the promise of divine eternal reward and threat of abominable infernal punishment motivates communities of faithful believers to conform to a standard of conduct that ideological authorities proclaim to be the will of their good one. Maybe based on this standard of conduct, ideological authorities command communities of faithful believers to work all the hours of the day, fight evil, be fruitful and multiply; prohibit sex for occupational, recreational and or homosexual purposes; and object to sexual education that could make these practices safer. Maybe these commands, prohibitions, and objections combine as parts of a standard of conduct that leads communities of faithful believers to out work, out fight and out number competition in the global culture. Maybe pressure to conform to this standard of conduct based on popular state sponsored ideological traditions became a matter of national patriotic duty. Maybe those who dared not conform found themselves outcast from communities of faithful believers and made examples of as traitors of state, and condemned as evil by ideological authorities. Maybe many others think, believe, and expect that supporting aggressive ideological traditions has worked for their particular state in past and expect that supporting aggressive ideological traditions will work in present and on into future. Maybe mercenary plutocratic predators are able to control these ideological traditions by patronizing ideological authorities whose message they like and not patronizing ideological authorities whose message they don't like. Maybe some mercenary plutocratic predators think, believe and expect belief systems that include spiritual reward and punishment as motivational tools are effective ways of serving their own need and aspiration to achieve and maintain authority, power, order and control over their states. Maybe the ideological traditions best able to satisfy a states need and aspiration to survive by motivating communities of faithful believers to out number, out work, and out fight competitors have come to dominate our global culture and receive significant patronage.

I consider the development of the global culture. I consider the rise and fall of various civilizations. I consider the reasons why states that promoted certain models of self and world to their communities of faithful believers flourished and survived within the global culture, while others struggled and did not survive. What are the factors that influence the fate and destiny of a state that promotes a certain model of self and world? What determines whether it will survive or not? I hypothesize that if a state promotes to communities of faithful believers a model of self and world and survives then a model of self and world survives. I think, believe and expect that the most important factor in determining the survival of a particular model of self and world is the success or failure to survive of any state that promotes a particular model to communities of faithful believers. Future generations of human beings will inherit ideological traditions that are best able to lead societies to act to win in the drama of life and death, game of survival and sacrifice, and test of success and failure taking place continuously in the body-consuming biosphere divided by a primal conflict of predator and prey.

Maybe models of self and world play the game of survival and sacrifice in the global culture just as life forms do. This similarity between states, models of self and world and life forms lead me to theorize that states, models of self and world and life forms evolve over time. What are these models of self and world evolving to become? I think, believe and expect that those states that out number, out work, out fight the rest of the planet survive. I think, believe and expect that models of self and world propagated by ideological traditions have been evolving to become tools used by states to motivate communities of faithful believers to out work, out fight and out number the rest of the planet.

I think, believe and expect that leadership offered by conservative ideological traditions that have survived and come to dominate the global culture will face challenges. Our body consuming biosphere of limited dimensions will challenge exponential growth by communities of faithful believers with greater scarcity for the many and greater wealth for the few. Exponential growth of communities of faithful believers will force the many of our global culture to go further out on to a technological limb in order to survive. Out on this technological limb the many will continue to be vulnerable to attack by terrorists and sacrifice. By both sponsoring terror and supplying protection services to the many, a mercenary plutocratic predatory few both succeeds in creating demand in the market place of the many for protection services and profits by supplying demand by the many for protective services all in the guise of fighting a spiritual conflict between good and evil. In a global shakedown of epic proportions that some call a 'war on terror', the wealth of the global culture will further concentrate into the hands of a mercenary plutocratic predatory few. Maybe the many will lose in a race to Armageddon and the few will win because the many will have no place to take refuge in the event of global nuclear war and or super volcano eruption and a mercenary plutocratic few will win because they will have a place to take refuge. As a beast of a military industrial complex moves the global culture closer to Armageddon, maybe a mercenary plutocratic predatory few will retreat into and rule from an underworld of bunkers and cities built underground and designed to withstand to aftermath of global nuclear war or other global catastrophe. If and when conditions permit maybe a mercenary plutocratic predatory few will emerge from their underworld and function as the seed of the next over world, repopulating the planet with animal, and plant life. After reading the above words, maybe some will question the value of leadership based on conservative ideological traditions and seek a liberal alternative.

What is a liberal alternative? In this House of Ideology Manifesto, I offer a liberal alternative. I lead others to devote their energy, space and time to a belief in a unified spiritual realm. I lead others to build a model of self and world unified by continuous spiritual communion between soul and spirit. I lead others to abandon a race to Armageddon; reject belief in Satan and in so doing reject conservative ideological traditions that lead communities of faithful believers to build models of self and world divided by a spiritual conflict between good and evil. I lead others to view sex for occupational, recreational, and homosexual purposes as an acceptable and honorable alternative to sex for procreative purposes. I lead others to favor sexual education that could make these practices safer. I lead others to build models of self and world that when used to orient self toward existence and explain existence to self, produce the highest esteem of self and world possible and imaginable. I lead others to think, believe and expect that an infinity, divinity, eternally one manifests as an infinite four. I lead others to think, believe and expect that we live in a body consuming biosphere divided by a primal conflict between predator and prey. I lead others to think, believe and expect that a mercenary plutocratic predatory few prey upon the many of our global culture. I lead others to question the wisdom of allowing the wealth of the global culture to concentrate into the hands of a mercenary plutocratic predatory few. I lead others to better protect themselves from terrorist attack and better achieve and maintain authority, power, order and control over their own lives by making laws of state that redistribute wealth from a mercenary plutocratic predatory few to the many, protect freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom thought, belief and expectation about self and world, and freedom of association and promote tolerance.

Some believe the state tries to take over the role of a good one in Heaven at war with an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth. Some believe making of laws that protect human rights and cause redistribution of wealth is a plot by the state to marginalize conservative ideological traditions that have traditionally cared for the poor and destitute and take on a role the state was never intend to take: the role of the good one in Heaven. Is it so bad that there are laws, human rights and a state to enforce and protect these? I believe that it is the responsibility of we the people to impose order of state law and government upon the chaos of a body consuming biosphere divided by a primal conflict between predator and prey. I believe that a mercenary plutocratic predatory few prey upon the many of our global culture and it is the responsibility of we the people to impose order of state law and government upon a mercenary plutocratic predatory few and prevent the many from being preyed upon.

Some would argue that because of support provided by a welfare state people who would not otherwise be able to are having families and that this redistribution of wealth by the state interferes with the on going process of survival of the fit and sacrifice of the lacking. Firstly, how do these people know that people would not otherwise be able to have families or that the state interferes with the on going process of survival of the fit and sacrifice of the lacking? Secondly, maybe if conservative ideological authorities were not busy channeling all sexual energy into sex for procreative purposes by leading members of communities of faithful believers to be fruitful and multiply, prohibit sex for recreational, occupational and homosexual purposes, and object to sexual education that could make these practices safer; and instead provided good entertainment, education and entertainment about these other alternative outlets for sexual energy then maybe some of these people would find an alternative outlet for their sexual energy. I do not think that the problem is the government providing for the common welfare or the welfare state. Providing social security creates population stability. We have seen this in modern industrialized countries. Not providing social security motivates people to have large extended families to achieve and maintain social security and this practice when wide spread leads to exponential population growth. We have seen this in many modern developing countries. Having large extended families to achieve and maintain social security is the method advocated by conservative ideological traditions motivating communities of faithful believers to out work, out fight and out number competition in the global culture in a race to Armageddon. Armageddon being sold as a necessary final conflict between a good one in Heaven and an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth. Some have allowed ideological authorities to dismiss the idea of a savior whose messages are of love, compassion and forgiveness and promote idea of a savior whose returning in a second coming as a warrior fighting in the end times will achieve final victory against an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth in a great war to end all wars known as Armageddon. Many conservative ideological authorities have become war mongers. They self righteously believe they will be raptured to Heaven before the Armageddon they have helped orchestrate unfolds upon those "left behind". The reality that I believe will unfold is many will suffer a global catastrophic blow to their survival in a war orchestrated by a mercenary plutocratic predatory few for profit and gain. A mercenary plutocratic predatory few will retreat to an underworld of under ground cities and bunkers and survive to reemerge when conditions permit to take possession of and repopulate the surface of the Earth.

I believe that the best way to defeat terrorism is to redistribute wealth from a mercenary plutocratic predatory few to the many so that the many have the opportunity to use wealth to protect themselves from attack. If many rely on giving all of their gold to a mercenary plutocratic predatory few in exchange for a promise of protection then the many leave themselves vulnerable to extortion carried out in a global shakedown called a war on terror perpetrated through collusion between a mercenary plutocratic predatory few and terrorists. I do not believe social insecurity is compatible with a society dependent upon a sophisticated technological infrastructure to support the survival of it's people. We are out on a technological limb that makes us vulnerable to terrorist attack. The submissive, the meek will inherit the Earth. That is those who conform to a standard of conduct dictated by laws of cause and effect that predict the behavior, fate and destiny of matter and energy in the known universe will survive to inherit the Earth. Maybe people who are seduced by the adrenaline rush of violence will eliminate themselves in wars sold by a mercenary plutocratic predatory few to the many as a conflict between a good one in Heaven at war with an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth.

I lead others to use truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery to converge upon the most powerful physiological responses of good health possible. I lead others to use myth and fantasy based on the mystery of existence to converge upon the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable. I lead others to combine truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery and myth and fantasy based on the mystery of existence to create a model of self and world that best produces happiness and good health. I lead others to think, believe and expect that good health and happiness promotes to the survival of individuals; states; and ideological traditions.

I can't help but agree with some of the things here but at the same time disagree:

"But on Tuesday, June 21, we will be present at the annual meeting because we want the next generation of gays growing up Southern Baptist to know that they are ok and that God loves them exactly as they are - despite what their leaders might tell them."

Yes, God loves us all, regardless of orientation...but the Bible explicitly states in Romans that the love between a woman and woman; and a man and man is an abomination (KJV translation). Yes, we should love people, regardless of who they are but at the same time, loving them is explaning the truth. God is not okay with us sinning consistently. God is not okay with my inherent flaw of being impatient or tendency to sin. God loves me regardless of what I do/who I am but it does not mean He will accept me into His kingdom if I do not change my sinful ways. If what Romans states as abominable, then tell me how one can do something that is hated by God and still go to heaven? That's my dilemma with the thinking on this website.

Marriage - the covenant between a couple to God - is a holy matrimony. Declaring what God calls a shameful lust (NIV Romans 1:26) a holy matrimony is totally a mockery of our religion. The solution should be allowing homosexuals the same rights under a civil union, not a Christian/Catholic marriage.

Please don't misinterpret my post. I love people, regardless of their orientation. I want them to be able to have the same rights as I - but I cannot be okay with saying marriage is okay when it is explicitly against what I've read in the Bible. If that's discrimination then okay...the way of the righteous is narrow and few pass through it. It's not easy taking a stand and being the salt and light - it wasn't suppose to be. Though Jesus loved every sinner, he did not say the sins were okay. He did not accept the sins. He told people to repent of those sins or else face eternal punishment. In the same way, we're to love but not be okay with the sin. Is being homosexual worse than any other sin, say lying or stealing? No, those are sins as well and we can never say they're okay just as we cannot say homosexual marriage is okay.

That's just my opinion. Any feedback I would really like to read.

Once again, we digress onto the sinfulness of homosexuality? Haven't we been over this already? Please look at http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2005/06/god_also_create.html for a lot of back discussion on this issue.

To sum up how I see no problem with queer identities, I try to read the Bible not just in linguistic translation, but also in cultural translation. The Bible tends to take long accepted cultural institutions, like the patriarchal family, and accept them as givens. The Bible does not create the patriarchal family system, but instead borrows it from the ancient near eastern culture the ancient Isrealites knew. It then takes that institution, and attempts to create justice within it. A set of rules that creates accountability for those at the bottom of the system to ensure that people are treated as fairly as possible.

When we read biblical condemnations of sexual behaviors, we need to think about how Old Testament/Hevrew Bible passages relate to the system of patriarchy. In patriarchy, men are allowed to sleep around (in fact, it seems to be expected of them) before marriage. Women on the other hand are strongly limited because of a need to ensure authenticity of hiers. When one read the New Testament accounts of sexuality, one is reading an account of the early church, which was under the influence of Hellenistic culture (the source of much of its anti-women feelings) and early first centruy religiousity and Judaism, both of which were very apocalyptic. From this we get a strong sense of urgency, that the end is upon us and its time to start being super holy, and not having sex at all, because Jewish conceptions of sex were that while it is not evil, it does make one temporarily unable to approach God. Combine this with condemnations of specific sexual practices that we're not quite sure what they are (terms that occur only in Pauls writings that have over time been translated as masturbation, gay sex, or older men using young boys as sex slaves), and we begin to create a framework to understand how the Bible deals with sexuality within the culture in which it was written.

We then take our understanding of sexuality in Biblical cultures, and try to apply it to our own. We know that the Bible strongly condems exploitation and demands justice. Homosexuality as we know it today wasn't understood as such until the 19th century. We know that it is not a choice. Our society has moved beyond patriarchy as a way to organize ourselves. We've moved to smaller families, marriages with self-selecting partners, liberated women, and more control on everyday life coming from the government. When we apply what the Bible teachs today, I see a call to accept homosexuals and create social justice for them. When I apply the Bible to today, I do not see a call to violently force society back into patriarchal modes of social control.

Sister Valerie: Thanks for your uplifting words. I believe it is indeed necessary to continue the dialogue we have been having in the PCUSA for the last couple decades, to not let Amendment A/B be the final word. But I say dialogue, not diatribe, because we really only have a chance to communicate, to share ideas, to HEAR each other, when we dialogue. I don't have all the answers, I do have a lot of questions, but I know I have Christ in my heart. It's for that reason that I decided (with my wife's support) to enter seminary 4 years ago at the ripe young age of 43. It's never too late to answer God's call, whatever it may be. Peace to you.

I taught a study a few years ago to folks (mostly from the congregation where I was a member). We covered everything that has every been alluded to as dealing with homosexuality. Some in the church thought I was just going to tell people what to believe. That was far from my purpose. It is not my role/right to tell anyone what to believe. We each will answer to God based on what we do and believe...not on what someone told us to believe. I presented the class on Homosexulity and the Bible: What it does and doesn't say. I presented traditional anti-homosexual material as well as gay affirming material. We began with Sodom and Gomorah and every passage that referenced those cities. We made a list of every named sin ascribed as the reason for their destruction. Homosexuality wasn't on the list. We looked at Leviticus and Romans (both have a context of idolatry). We looked at what was written in Corinithians. We looked at the subject of "eunuchs". We looked at the word used to describe the Centurian's "son" whom Jesus healed. In the end no one seemed to find the certain condemnation of homosexuality. I even played a D. James Kennedy sermon on the subject on the next to last night. The class found is sermon unsupported by the scriptures he sighted. I guess it pays to read the book and not have someone tell you what it says or assume to know what it says. All the while I am thankful for all those Church of Christ Sunday school classes for giving me the tools to search for myself rather than just following what someone told me to believe

I am a new subscriber to Christian Alliance and am so grateful to have a place where real intelligent conversation can be had. My son is gay, and one of the first things I discussed with him when he came out was that he knew that God loved him. He looked at me with a puzzled expression and said "yes, of course". What a wonderful thing to know his father and I have done something right.
I have enjoyed reading your posts and will continue to check here on a daily basis. I just wish I had more to add...but thought you'd like to know there are parents who love and support their gay children, without hesitation.

Sister Bonnie: As the Father has loved us, so we are to love each other. God bless you and your husband for loving your son, and may God's love continue to grow through each of us in this troubled world in which we live. Amen.

Why do they argue about marriage and Gays, God says it is a sin for man to lie with man so if they die with out asking God to forgive them for sinning then God will Judge them, but we should not judge them here on earth, for judging others is a sin.
What dose the Bible say about being Gay
New International Version Genesis 19
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

Judges 1922 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”
Leviticus 1822 “ ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

Leviticus 20 13 “ ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1 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.
1 Corinthians 6
9Do 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
Remember we must forgive just as Jesus did here.

John: 8
3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11”No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
The Validity of Jesus’
The gay debate if ever thing was black and white we could all go to heaven I do not think God wants to be that crowded [Gods house has many rooms] so why are their gay people? Because if their was no gay people there could be no gay sin. True but God will forgive us as we forgive others. Have you heard this as in the Lords prayer. Judge other as you want to be judged.
Now on gay marriage if you stop them from getting benefits for their partner and we get benefits for our partner. Now are we stealing from them or some how sinning against them
There is only one sin that can not be forgiven

Ionly belive that i have to forgive and that is the only way i can be for given

considering how often the bible has been translated into a different language
considering that it is the word of God as interpreted by the men who wrote them
considering that in those times propagation was a pressing need (unlike today...not that we don't need to propagate, but we certainly don't need to have every sexually mature member of society doing so)
it's hard to draw any solid conclusions on homosexuality. however, i don't believe God loves me "in spite of" the fact that i'm gay. i don't have to ask forgiveness for it. i seek forgiveness for the wrongs i have done others. i seek forgiveness for the wrongs i have done to myself. i seek forgiveness for having turned my back on Him before in my life. but i find it hard to believe that He would like me to seek forgiveness for loving and being happy.
"gay sin"? loving is not a sin.
also, i have to agree with the gentleman who said he didn't choose to be homosexual. having lost a man i love to anti-gay violence and been the subject of it myself, i can honestly say that no one would wish that kind of pain and ostracization on themselves.

To Monte Schlarman, re: the story of Soddom and Gommorah:

Lot says, "8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them." That doesn't strike you as something wrong?

Also, in my KJV, and other translation, it is not "to have sex with them" it is "to know them," with "know" having a sexual connotation.
However, the sin of Soddom, is in Ezekeil 16:48-50 states it clearly: "The people of Sodom, like many people today, had abundance of material goods. But they failed to meet the needs of the poor, and they worshipped idols. The sins of injustice and idolatry plague every generation. We stand under the same judgment if we create false gods or treat others with injustice."

Oh every Leviticus reference: the rules in Leviticus were for a different time. Christians follow none of the Jewish laws layed out in Leviticus - so why do we chose this verse out? "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Israel, as the place of the chosen people of God, was not to follow what other cultures did.

Last thing: Jesus never said a thing about homosexuals. I beleive it is only mentioned 4 times in the New Testament.

I find it appalling that you want to teach equality towards homosexuals.. i find it appalling that as "christians" you want to accept people into positions of influence who are not born again. Do we not realize that scripture has taught us time and again that homosexuality is a sin? does it not teach that sin will keep us from heaven? have we forgotten sodom and gomorrah? does God need to send more plagues as he did to pharoah? I pray for you.. maybe one day you will see your ways of "tolerance", "equality", and "love" are wrong fundamentally, scriptually, and spiritually.

I would suggest that anyone who thinks that Soddom and Gemorrah has to do with homosexuality also read the story preceding in in Genesis, in which the angles visit Abraham and are treated very well and then go to S and G and are treated badly. Abraham is rewarded, S and G are destroyed. Its a story about haspitality rules. Also, check out the story in Judges 19.

Why do the men in S and G want to rape the angels? Isn't it about sexual desire? NO. It isn't. Rape is not about sex or about lust. Rape is about power. The reason the men want to rape the angels in Genesis and the visitor in Judges is because they are outsiders in the town. Feeling threatened by the outsiders, they use gang rape as a technique to demonstrate their power over the visitors. Its basic psychology, no different from gang rapes at prisons or when gang rapes of female famliy members are used as punishments in Pakistan, for example. Billy Graham recognizes this, and wehn he preaches on S and G, he preaches on hospitality and protecting the outsiders in your community, never on homosexuality.

For a great reading of the story in Judges, which we so often don't hear in church, check out Tikva Freymer-Kinsky's "Reading the Women of the Bible."

I would like to forward a suggestion. I'm a bit of a watchdog, I take in some of the less civilized discussion sites on the internet, Phelp's site and on down (up?, in any case he's pretty much the bench mark for vocal public admonitions of human behavior, most everyone else moves away from his, mmmm, potent rhetoric;) I never comment or get into a baiting situation or generally take time with conversations, so this is a first for me, posting in a Christian forum. Have any of you considered having discussions of human behavior that requires the moral clarity of your scriptures while in the presence of humans who express this behavior? Not in a Phelps kind of way, not a confrontation, and not to immediately witness for the gospel? Have any of you who seem to naturaly feel repulsion for another human sat and talked with the person that repulses you? Not with the intention of being able to save that person. Have you thought to share a table with these people, to share a meal or a simple visit? That's my suggestion, and it's primary, in my view. Approach the people you revile, attempt to befriend them if you're feeling robust. Or maybe open the door for them, as you would one of your own friends.

Children are powerful teachers. You may have at some time seen a young child shrink in fear from a very elderly person, or from a disabled or physically disfigured person. I recall myself having that fear of my mother's grandmother when I was very young. And of course as I grew my fear of "Nanny" waned; as I grew my fear of many things and people alien in my childhood diminished; my Grandfather's irrepressible bigotry became a profound mystery, my Father's anti-semitism became troubling and a burden I carried in my heart. As I grew into young adulthood I became perplexed to the point of sorrow about the way my family was penned in by what I eventually came to understand to be fear. Fear of things and people they had never encountered or could never make a humane onnection with.

Some of us reading, and certainly myself, have beein in passionate exchanges with people we believe, or feel obligated through our beliefs, we disagree with. I offer this opinion based on my own personal experience: anger is easy, striking out is very easy, and with sufficient anger physical violence seems almost natural. I've had my share of fights, enough to know that peace can be the more difficult choice. Peace is more available with people you are familiar with, peace is possible with a family member, peace can occur between you and your fellows, socially, at work, in any circumstance where there is a familiarity.

I think it's pretty easy to offer a person we believe to be beneath us pity masked as compassion; murderers, for instance the murderers of Matthew Sheppard and the folks that may regard those two young men as heroes; thieves, petty and corporate; rapists; hardened violent criminals; and all, all the like company you can imagine. My suggestion is to meet these people; abandon, if even usuccessfully and only for a moment, your repulsion of them; attempt to imagine these people as humans, humans as yourself.

And if I can be bold, if that wasn't bold enough, I'd like to offer a challenge--question the various English translations of the scripture. Go back to the greek, discover the lexicon that the scripture was composed in, don't trust with all your heart some British monarch's translation. An investment of faith that calls upon all one's power of heart and belief would demand a very rigorous examination of the documents the faith is based upon. Eschatology of the Pentateuch? Is cherry picking through Mosaic law sufficient to comdemn people not only to a hell everlasting but to hell in this life as well? Is it diminishing to scripture to bolster fear and anger and even violence with words of God? As I said, it's a challenge.

When my father, at the age of 68, finally gathered his courage and told his siblings that I, a 40 year old man, was gay, his brothers and sisters said, "Oh, we've known that for quite some time." Face both, the things that scare and repulse you, and your own fear and loathing. And have some of these conversations with the objects of your fear.

It sounds like that's what you'd like to do and more. Best of luck to you in your struggles to come. You may find the friendship of people who have struggled a lifetime valuable as you chart your course.

I too am gay and I was born that way. I embrace it but I first embrace Jesus as my Lord and Saviour. I have a wonderful monogamous relationship wtih someone and I know without a shadow of doubt I am born again, saved, filled with the Holy Spirit and sanctified and on my way to heaven. There may be some surprises to who is there and who is not but that is not for me to decide. There is no way I could ever want to or could change who I am. I admit there may be young people or some people who might experiment with this behavior just like they might with other sexual behavior or drugs,etc. But trust me I and every other gay person I know was born that way. God bless.

Jesus loves people who practice homosexuality. He also loved the adulterous woman, and told her to repent. In fact, Jesus loved (loves) every sinner who has ever come to Him; but the condition for forgiveness is repentance. Has been and always will be. Calling a sinful behavior a 'lifestyle" does not make it any less sinful.

Repent. Repent. Repent.

I just wanted to say that it also saddens me to see so much anger and hatred spewing forth from some Christian people today. I can honestly respect differences in interpretation and theology as long as we keep what I believe Jesus said was the greatest commandment when the lawyer tried to trick him - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself." Whatever your biblical interpretation/understanding, it is clearly not in the spirit of Jesus/God to go around spewing hatred and wanting, inciting, and even causing harm to come to people who are LGBT!\

In addition to that, besides the great points that have been made already, I just wanted to add my own experience. I was a pretty conservative Southern Baptist during and after college. I did believe in loving people who were gay but felt it was very wrong to live like that - even if it was someone's inclination. The most important thing that changed my mind was attending a Presbyterian Church that was "More Light" (like welcoming and affirming) of LGBT people. I saw couples there - both Lesbian and Gay who had been together for many years in loving committed relationship and were raising children in loving homes. So I thought, if God has given someone the desire/gift of being able to love another adult in a consentual loving and growing relationship - that can't be wrong - it is too near what I understand to be the nature of God!

With all respect, I have a question for the many who seem so worried about homosexuality. If we demand that homosexuals not be ordained or that they "should repent" before they can be accepted within the body of Christ, then why don't we just as vigorously demand that rich people not be ordained or that they should repent by giving away their wealth before they too can be accepted? After all, Christ told us that it is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to go to heaven".

As a gay Christian, I've often been told that I need to repent. I can choose not to have sex with anyone that I'm attracted to for the rest of my life and that will not make me heterosexual. Being gay is more than a sex act. It is who I am. The only way to repent is to cease to exist. I have an "ex-gay" friend. He is married and I asked him about who he "gets through" sex with his wife. He said he just thinks about a man. If that is repentance, if that is what God expects me to do, I want nothing of it. That life is full of lies. I wish those heterosexuals that call for my repentance would try to "repent" from being heterosexual. It is not possible.

It is very clear that it is a sin in the Bible but my question is, how as a church do we help the gay christian. I work with youth and you are seeing them rejected by the church and they are walking out the doors angry with God. I have heard them cry out to the Lord. What as a church body should we do to help them. Is there any help groups or delivered homosexual out there? If so how do we get these youth in touch with these people for help? The question isn't is it right or wrong but how do we help them get set free. We have enough judging them. Now we need to show them the solution.

My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!

At: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman/

Your jaw will drop!

eschatology,End Times,second coming,rapture,secret rapture,Second Resurrection,Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead,
End of Days,Day of the Lord,Endtime,Judgment Day

yay this sites sooo cool!

hey i just happened to stumble across this sight this morning and i figured i'd add my 2 sense in i've seen arguments for and against homosexuality in the church and i've come to this conclusion. my heart as a christian has nothing but love towards the sinner as a christian because i am one, i am a sinner saved by grace. No better or worse then anyone else as far as i'm concerned i'm am a worst sinner because any sin i commit, i commit with the full knowlege that i'm hurting my LORD and savior JESUS CHRIST and that thats what he went to the cross for he went to the cross so we could be forgiven so that we would not have to be in bondage to our sin. As christians we are to be ever watchfull against our own tendancys and our own sin. We must look at the bible as the total and ultimate standard. and as the final authority on our actions that are offensive to God (sins)Christians belive that the bible is 100% inerrant and that what is in the bible is what God meant to say to his people. therefore everyone if they claim to be a christian must take that distinction. the bible calls our actions as homosexuals, sins it is not me that is saying this it is the bible i cannot apologize for the scripture. i also can say that i know several gay poeple that i have pretty decent relationships with i dont hate the person that sais their gay i simply hate what their doing because if i'm striving to be like christ then i cannot agree and condone what their doing. living a homosexual lifestyle is hurtfull to Christ because it is sin it is what he came here to save us from just as he came here to save me from my sins as a christian i must stay in prayer and in the bible or else i will as easily fall into sin as anyone else will. As christians we do not hate the person that is gay we only hate what they do because Christ also hated the sin of others. but Christ also loved us as sinners enough to take the beating and the hurt and the pain and stay up on a cross so we could be cleansed and forgiven of our sins i hope that by reading this that you can come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and learn to walk and live with him.
Your brother in Christ

David

I just read this entire page, top to bottom. Let me say that these words could be my first steps back to church. Raised southern baptist, I cannot go to my home church anymore. I respect women, gays, straights, ideas, conversation, and thought way too much. To hear that at least half of the writers on this page can understand each other, can live in love, can think for themselves, it touches my heart. And let me say to the other half: get ready, you'll see, soon.

Can I challenge you? Get your voices out there, into the pews. I honestly believe it will take a full gay pride parade down the isle to get me back to church. End the hate, fear, insolence. Please, take these voices to the church. Let the community know that members of the church believe these words. Don't let it sit in this message board. I'd really like to go back to my church. Let the parade begin..