Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  big reveals

Georgia Megachurch Pastor Jim Swilley: I’m Gay, And I’m Telling You Because Of Those Bullycides

Is it terrible that my first instinct, upon learning Georgia megapastor Jim Swilley has come out, is thinking he must have a secret gay sex scandal that he’s trying to get in front of? Eddie Long and Ted Haggard have ruined it for everyone! But really, this is an amazing story. Keep your chin up for it.

[flv:http://media.queerty.net/swilleycomingout1.mp4 http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2010/10/swilley99110.jpg 650 400]

Swilley, who created the Church In The Now some 25 years ago, is a divorced father of four. But he’s known he’s gay since he was a boy, says the Rockdale County man of the cloth, and even his wife Debye — whom he divorced earlier this year — knew when they got married (!). The couple kept it a secret for more than two decades, but Jim says Debye recently pushed him to share his story.

The pastor made the announcement to his congregation two weeks ago (yes, it takes time for some stories to trickle), with his family in the audience and decided to come out now after witnessing the rash of gay youths killing themselves. One Internet forum poster says that unlike Atlanta’s Long (whom Swilley won’t speak about), Swilley has not used the pulpit to denigrate gays: “For those of you familiar with Church In the Now, while never discussing his own sexuality, you know that Swilley has always preached a message of inclusion, love and abundance for all God’s children. Bishop Swilley has been asked to step down as Bishop, but will remain as Pastor.” (That last part we haven’t confirmed.)

If there’s a mass exodus from his church, Swilley says he wouldn’t be able to survive it, but would certainly pick up and start again. “God has always spoken through me,” he tells his followers, saying the calling has been with him since birth. His parents tell him stories of him preaching as a toddler in diapers; he doesn’t remember that time.

“Those of you who are people of color. How do you like it when a white person says, ‘What is the deal? What are you so unhappy about? You’ve got a black president already, isn’t racism over?’ Doesn’t that make you want to say, ‘Thank you but you really have no idea what you’re talking about.’ … It’s very easy for people who have never experienced something … to have opinions about it.”

Below, video of his sermon where he tells his congregation, for the first time, that he is a gay man of god. It’s quite beautiful, and if you can squeeze it in between trick-or-treating, really, do it.

[WSBTV]

By:           MATT DEBORD
On:           Oct 29, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 195 Comments
    • Ian
      Ian

      Welcome to a new world of acceptance and truth.

      Oct 29, 2010 at 10:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jay
      jay

      I am not surprised. It is Atlanta. Boy do I feel sorry for the women here, they don’t have a chance of meeting any straight men

      Oct 29, 2010 at 10:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MickW
      MickW

      Never heard of him.

      Oct 29, 2010 at 10:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dallas David
      Dallas David

      As much as I rag on preachers, this guy seems like he’s as much on the right track as a preacher can be without being atheist or agnostic.

      It took a lot for him to say what he did, and I applaud him for it. It will undoubtedly help some closeted kids in the area hold on until they can hobble away from their dysfunctional families and live on their own.

      Oct 29, 2010 at 11:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomM
      TomM

      Thank you Pastor Swilley.

      Oct 29, 2010 at 11:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteamPunk
      SteamPunk

      Pastor Swilley’s speech is really amazing to watch. I really, really wish the best for him. Also, the fact that his wife and kids were in the audience and applauded him speaks volumes about their character, since this is obviously difficult for anyone to go through.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 12:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff K.
      Jeff K.

      Satan had better put on his parka, because we just found a respectable and admirable clergyman.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 12:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteamPunk
      SteamPunk

      Also, the story the Pastor told about DADT is heartbreaking.
      And, around 50 minutes when his ex-wife gets up to speak – she is so fantastic!

      Oct 30, 2010 at 12:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wes B
      Wes B

      For once in my life, I feel I have heard a truth come from so deep in one’s soul. There is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. I find myself in the spiritual realm as I do not subscribe to many teachings of many hard core religious pastors, including the one who lead a small country church in South Alabama to vote me out…excommunicate, if you will…two weeks after standing beside me at my grandfather’s grave, telling me that I was going to hell and that I no longer had a place in that church. This man appears humbled by the spirit…which is humbling…and shares his true self with the church. I want nothing more than to lift Bishop Swilley up and thank him and God for placing him on this earth.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 2:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      What is with you yanks and your craving for idiotic beliefs in a malevolent sky pixie??

      Pffff, I just don’t get it.

      The beliefs cause you grief and a lot of unhappiness, so why not just give it up?

      Oct 30, 2010 at 5:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carl
      Carl

      I don’t even know where that church is located but I’m ready to leave my own and go join them. They are on the right side of history but more importantly, they are teaching the message of CHRIST – 1st, to love God and 2nd, to love your neighbor as yourself. You have to love yourself, that’s part of it and that’s the message that is lost in nearly every church. I am moved by the message brought forth in this video and I am tempted to send this to my pastor (anonymously) :-).

      Oct 30, 2010 at 5:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Doot
      Doot

      homicide – to kill a man
      suicide – to kill ones self
      regicide – to kill a king
      matricide – to kill your mother
      fratricide – to kill your brother
      pesticide – to kill a pest

      “bullycide” would mean “to kill a bully”

      Oct 30, 2010 at 6:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Todd Army
      Todd Army

      Doesn’t his church make homos wrong? This is going to be interesting to watch – most Blacks believe religiously that homosexuality is wrong and full of sin.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 7:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jackson
      Jackson

      @Carl: What religion are you talking about? The message of Christianity is that all are destined for hell, except those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Failure to do that means hell, no matter how much you claim to love your neighbor. Wide is the path to destruction; narrow is the path to salvation.

      Christianity is a death cult that is premised on a god who is a mass torturer. For kindness and decency to survive, Christianity must die.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 7:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • eg
      eg

      I hate when individuals use the phrase “people of color” isn’t white a color?? It’s seems like a very divisive phrase still. Try using “individuals who have minority status” that includes so many more subsets of our society and moves past the “color” issue…ie:lgbt, women, disabled, mentally ill,race,…etc.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 8:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregger
      Gregger

      Just quit the nitpicking and be glad the man spoke up and came out!!

      It’s all too easy for those of us who have long been out to bash aspects of the life of the person that we don’t agree with. You don’t know his truth or life. He came out and has a positive message, be happy with that.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 9:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tessie Tura
      Tessie Tura

      I pass this church en route to Augusta when I take a slutcation at the Parliament House. The church is effing huge. He’s kinda hot in a daddy sort of way.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 10:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Good for him.
      Although it always puzzles me that intelligent people can believe that the bible is anything other than a badly written, heavily edited, work of fiction (by several authors) designed to give meaning to desert dwelling iliterate people, from thousands of years ago.
      Believe what you like I suppose, but keep your religious hands off the laws of this country.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 10:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • stephen
      stephen

      That was a great speech, by him and his ex-wife.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FreddyMertz
      FreddyMertz

      Wow, I’m actually speechless.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tessie Tura
      Tessie Tura

      And I should add that (for once) kudos to Queerty for treating this news item with the dignity it really deserves. It is worth it to watch the entire one hour and fifteen minute video.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mulletkitty
      mulletkitty

      Good for him, but as he talks about spending an entire life praying the gay away in him, how sad this is, and how unnecessary — the decades of pain he caused himself and others, suffering his life away because he felt god “called him” and this calling was incompatible with his sexuality.

      There are so many pro-gay faith groups out there, and tons and tons of writing by gay evangelicals — Soul Force, Mel White all come to mind. There’s a wide support network and dialogue readily available for evangelicals seeking guidance.

      Given how much soul searching he discusses — three decades worth – what makes so many evangelicals locked into their tiny little network of counselors/communities? Maybe someone can explain this tunnel vision to me. Why don’t evangelicals seek out evangelically-accepting perspectives on homosexuality?

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tessie Tura
      Tessie Tura

      @Todd Army: No, his church does NOT “make homos wrong”. He challenges his congregation to find anything in his writings or sermons that bad-mouths homosexuality. One of the people who speaks is a lesbian in an interracial relationship. Watch the “long” video. It is worth the time to watch, once you get past the chatty opening that really is meaningful only to church members who know who and what he is talking about.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      Really fascinating.

      The spate of gay teen suicides and the reaction to it is clearly a watershed moment. It’s echoing across the culture in ways I would never have imagined.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      FINALLY one of them comes out with a bit of integrity instead of being dragged out in a scandal. Welcome to honesty and truth pastor!

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “What is with you yanks and your craving for idiotic beliefs in a malevolent sky pixie??”

      Lovely hate speech. What a tragic example of hypocrisy.

      “Christianity is a death cult”
      Homophobes says that homosexuality is a culture of death. Atheism is clearly just another abusive and degrading prejudice.

      “For kindness and decency to survive, Christianity must die.”

      Homophobes want to eradicate homosexuality. Because Christianity is a human experience, to get his wish he would have to kill or violently oppress millions of people. Yet some people to continue to lie about the intrinsic hate that is atheism. And poor Jackson doesn’t even realize that his desire to destroy millions of people or force his belief on them would destroy kindness and mercy.

      “that intelligent people can believe that the bible is anything other than a badly written, heavily edited, work of fiction”

      It puzzles me that people with no interest in religion, and no experience or education in the subject, constantly make false claims about it, and then through hissy fits when homophobes, with no interest in homosexuality, no experience and no education, make false claims about homosexuality.

      Anti-religious bigotry is just as evil as anti-gay bigotry.

      “but keep your religious hands off the laws of this country”
      Keep your anti-religions hands off the laws of this country, and stop dreaming of oppressing millions of human beings.

      Homophobes only hate and oppress 10% of humanity, but atheism teaches hatred and oppression of 99% of humanity.

      GLBTQ people get understandably, and appropriately, offended when homophobes lie about homosexuality, and then the anti-religious hate mongers here post lies about religion.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      This is so beautiful. For people coming out of a religious background or family it really really means a lot. I cried as I watched it.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carl
      Carl

      @Jackson: I’m talking about the religion Christ taught which you have grossly misinterpreted and/or continue to perpetuate. Christ taught love and inclusion. We are saved by grace through faith and NOT OF OURSELVES – lest we boast. Where sin abounds, grace abounds more. You can’t out sin God’s grace. That’s the good news Jackson. Rejoice!

      Oct 30, 2010 at 12:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • roger ramjet
      roger ramjet

      Oh great! That phycho crazy witch Cassandra is out and about, swooping along on her broomstick. Just in time for Halloween…..

      Oct 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      There are quite a lot of homophobes who claim to be “good christians”. Clint McCance is a great example.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • southpaugh
      southpaugh

      It’s all well and good that he’s being honest, even twenty years down the road, about his orientation. But, the fact remains he is a founding member of an organization, however inclusive, that enables those others, as part of its inclusive mission, in the same sandbox who condemn, villify, marginalize and deny civil rights to gays based on nonexistant supernatural fairy tales. Anybody who fails to openly designate and declare the fraudulent nature of the very premise upon which religion, including and especially Christianity in America, because that’s the big one stepping all over our rights, is falling short of the solution and merely contributing to the problem. In short: Thanks, dude, but it’s too little and it’s ‘way too late. You’re getting closer, but still no cigar. Maybe it makes you feel better, but nothing changes for the rest of us who are effected by the issue.

      BTW, Cassandra doesn’t have a clue about atheism, atheists or the nature of being free from religion. Non-religion is the default state at birth, and people only become religious once they’re exposed to it, rather like a disease. Religious observation is a choice, unlike allergies or sexual orientation. One is set in their sexual orientation long before they’re ever exposed to any kind of sex. Anti-religious behaviour is a defensive posture in reaction to abuse and attacks on those of us who would rather be allowed to just mind our own business, but are not allowed by the gratuitously prevalent social antipathy for innocents.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Milkman
      The Milkman

      I wasn’t going to watch this, but I did. And I’m glad I did.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Milkman
      The Milkman

      @Carl: Well said, Carl.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ken Powell
      Ken Powell

      This is the most honest and moving celebration of humanity, I have ever experienced. Thank you for demonstrating your support all persons, gay, straight, bisexual and transgendered.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cole Marentette
      Cole Marentette

      @Jackson: That’s not entirely true. At its core, Christianity is a religion of self-sacrifice, love, and acceptance, but has been wrought into a weapon of hate and malice by evil and misguided men. I was raised Roman Catholic and, while I’m no longer part of the Church (due in large part to a lack of acceptance for my “alternative lifestyle”) I still believe in the core principles. Treat others as you would have them treat you, do good for people without seeking reward, in general, don’t be a dick. It seems to work for me, and it makes me wonder why people are so intent on twisting a belief structure based around loving and accepting the downtrodden and different among us into something so hateful and cold.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jake the libertarian
      Jake the libertarian

      Welcome out! It’s nice out here =)

      Oct 30, 2010 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      @Cole Marentette:
      The golden rule is hardly unique to Christianity. The principle was codified independently in various versions by countless cultures both long before and after the rise of Christianity. Which is hardly surprising – given that it such a simple and self-evident concept – that intelligent and highly social creatures would come up with it as soon as the started creating more advanced societies that moved beyond simple survival and subsistence. Our innate morality (independent of any supernatural hocus pocus) has the same cause.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Swilley is bisexually oriented, not gay. Stop trying to turn him into a Gay Inc pin-up boy. He’s got 4 children for Pete’s sake. You can’t have 4 children if you aren’t at least a little turned on by women.

      I think he’s playing the gay pity card just like that other bisexually oriented man, Jim McGreevey, former governor of New Jersey.

      In any case, I applaud the fact that he’s overcome the stigma on the same-sex component of his bisexual orientation.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DaleVM
      DaleVM

      So much for the Biblical standards of morality. What’s next, approval of bestiality, necrophila and pedophilia? So much for Western Civilization, we’re falling just like the Roman Empire.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 6:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Southpaugh

      “BTW, Cassandra doesn’t have a clue about atheism,”
      Your empty dismissal means you cannot refute what I wrote.

      Atheism has only one precept: the assertion that God does not exist.

      “Non-religion is the default state at birth,”

      So claim atheists. Religion teaches something else entirely.

      “and people only become religious once they’re exposed to it,”

      So claim atheists, but religious people experience something else. Just like homophobes who claim to know what homosexuals really experience.

      Of course, you are affirming my core premise, by using exactly the same arguments that homophobes use – who claim that no one is born homosexual and that some people become homosexuals when exposed to it.

      “rather like a disease.”
      Homophobes routinely compare homosexuality to disease.

      “Religious observation is a choice,”
      Homophobes assert that homosexuality is a choice, but, both homosexuals and people of faith testify that they experience something innate.

      “Anti-religious behaviour is a defensive posture in reaction to abuse and attacks on those of us who would rather be allowed to just mind our own business, but are not allowed by the gratuitously prevalent social antipathy for innocents.”

      Homophobes argue that their bias against homosexuals is a defensive posture in reaction to abuse and attacks on society by homosexuals, and that heterosexuals would rather be allowed to mind their own business, but are not allowed to by gay agenda.

      Thank you for demonstrating that atheism is a prejudice.

      Steve
      “The golden rule is hardly unique to Christianity. The principle was codified independently in various versions by countless cultures both long before and after the rise of Christianity.”

      Prove it. I am interested in seeing you prove that an infinite – countless – number of cultures all have any belief in common.

      “Which is hardly surprising – given that it such a simple and self-evident concept – that intelligent and highly social creatures would come up with it as soon as the started creating more advanced societies that moved beyond simple survival and subsistence. Our innate morality (independent of any supernatural hocus pocus) has the same cause.”

      And yet, atheism does not contain or express or manifest or follow this simple and self-evidence concept, and is a direct violation of it, as is homophobia. Atheism, like homophobia, relies on lies and distortions, abusive personal attacks, dismissals and denials to make its case. Its only premise is that most of humanity is wrong about their own experiences, while the self-elected are intrinsically right about something they don’t (so they say) even experience.

      Many religions teach that God, the Divine, the Absolute, by a variety of names, is the source of that innate morality, and atheism offers nothing to disprove it, and atheists on line often demonstrate that the absence of religion coincides with the absence of morality.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 8:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Cole
      You wrote “it makes me wonder why people are so intent on twisting a belief structure based around loving and accepting the downtrodden and different among us into something so hateful and cold.”

      The Bible, among it’s many functions, is a mirror that reveals to people their real selves. When someone finds hate and condemnation, injustice and domination in the Bible, they are seeing what they value most reflected at them. When someone finds love, justice, compassion, honor and mercy and grace in the Bible, they are seeing what they value most reflected at them.

      Someone who is basically loving, just, honorable and decent, will find those qualities in the Bible, with encouragement to grow in those qualities. Someone who is mean, vindictive, abusive, domineering, finds that in the Bible, see that it is criticized and rebuke, and feel threatened at the very idea that they should not harm other people, and act out those terrible behaviors rather than change.

      So, DaleVM
      “So much for the Biblical standards of morality. What’s next, approval of bestiality, necrophila and pedophilia?”

      You really did not need to share with us what the mirror of the Bible shows you about your self.

      Your post violates Christ’s standard of morality, unless you enjoy having your intimate relationship equated with raping animals, dead things and children. While your post does mirror the way many, many atheists talk about people of faith, there are already more than enough examples of abusive people raping the Bible in order to make their hatred of others seem less revolting – from both fundamentalist religionists and fundamentalist atheists.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 8:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark [Different person #1 using similar name]

      He’s hot…I’d do him

      Oct 30, 2010 at 8:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Now I know why Cassandra’s posts introduce such fear into me. The censorious tone, the condemnation and judgement of non-believers, the arrogance of putting yourself in the position of a god head. It sounds exactly like the baptist church leader that molested me as an 8 year old child. Thank you for the flashback.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hephaestion
      hephaestion

      @jason: Yes, you can have 4 children and be gay, NOT bisexual. I had sex with women often and one woman told me I was the best lover of her lifetime, and she’d had lots of HOT lovers. It was because I was focused on HER needs, and I got erections by thinking of hot men while I had sex with women. Gay men have been doing this for centuries. I know 100% gay men with very large broods of children. It’s not that hard, and you don’t have to be bisexual to get a LITTLE pleasure out of sex with women, even if you have no actual attraction to them.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 10:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      Let me preface my opinions by saying that no one knows the heart of Bishop Swilley therefore I caution you that assuming he has truly been born again, being raised from spiritual death and indwelt by the Holy Spirit is a fact that only God himself knows and as we know, Satan himself as an Angel of light. 2 Cor 11:14
      Now, I would like for Bishop Swilley to explain to me where I can find the evidence that proves God genetically embedded all sexual orientations & races into Adam & Eve, who unquestionably are the entire worlds geneaological beginning?
      When one considers that life isn’t based on right & wrong, good or evil, but truth (Whose source is God alone, via the Holy Spirit) vs error (whose source is Satanic or secular) I believe heterosexuality is truth & all other forms of sexual orientation including homosexuality is error that is made through personal choice. This goes for the so-called races doctrine as well, with the human race singular being truth and races plural should rightly be characterized as error. The most important part of walking in truth is the freedom it brings, conversely the fruit of error is bondage, which in it’s worst case with respect to races is manifested in death by the hand of man being the worst in which case entails the loss of a single person up to millions losing their lives.
      In closing I can’t help but wonder why anyone, professing Christian’s or otherwise believes our friends and neighbors require that we identify ourselves by chosen sexual orientation/s, it really defies my logic without the need of biblical sourcing. My prayer for Bishop Swilley is that God will open his mind, heart & spirit to his eternal truth via the Holy Spirit….Amen

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      I am always amazed by all the Evangelicals and Mormons that comment on all the religious news items on this site. Why are they reading it to begin with? How do they even find this stuff? I am a religious person who reads this site because I am myself gay and am interested in the news items and commentary, but I very much doubt I would read it if I were not myself gay. I just try to imagine the scenario that brings these people browsing to Queerty based on my experience reading Mormon and Evangelical blogs and I still don’t really understand it. I would be interested if any of these readers wanted to explain themselves as I find this hugely puzzling just as it is, apparently, predictable.

      Oct 30, 2010 at 11:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @ Anonymous (#46):
      The answer to your question: Several different groups monitor this &other LGBT websites, or set up google alerts: Christian fundies, Mormons Catholics, Adam Lambert fans and Lady Gaga fans. Clay Aiken fans do as well.

      You can drive up traffic bigtime to Queerty or any site just about, by a {fictional] sentence as simple as:

      “Adam Lambert and Lady Gaga are considering Catholic, Baptist or LDS churches for their upcoming gay marriage—a well-concealed secret since Ms. Gaga has renounced both bisexuality and atheism Clay Aiken will be the associate Minister. A lesbian bishop will offer prayers.

      Easy, huh?

      Oct 31, 2010 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      @Jeffree

      That is fascinating. I guess I just don’t understand why they come on here to harass us, even if they’re monitoring this and other gay blogs. Do they think we’re unaware of their positions on these subjects and they’re offering us something we don’t already know quite well? I wouldn’t start arguing with people on Bycommonconsent, Faithpromotingrumor (Mormon blogs), Virtueonline, Anglicancurmudgeon, or Titusonenine (Conservative Anglican blogs), for example, when I disagree about their interpretations of gay issues, even though I read them all regularly. It really is sort of irritating too since so many of these kinds of posts don’t even make any sense. Like take this gem:

      When one considers that life isn’t based on right & wrong, good or evil, but truth (Whose source is God alone, via the Holy Spirit) vs error (whose source is Satanic or secular) I believe heterosexuality is truth & all other forms of sexual orientation including homosexuality is error that is made through personal choice. This goes for the so-called races doctrine as well, with the human race singular being truth and races plural should rightly be characterized as error.

      So does that mean truth is different from right and good? The whole first sentence makes no sense at all.

      I also doubt it is theologically accurate to say God is the only source of truth. It may be correct to say that God is the only source of absolute truth. If you read Proverbs and other wisdom literature like Ben Sira, it would become apparent that even the Bible contains a notion of secular or conventional sapiental knowledge. We might say that God is, ultimately, the only source of truth, since the Logos had to initially inspire truth, but I would want to see that made more explicit.

      The Old Testament also contains a strong ethnology, so I think the race comment is misleading. Certain passages are universal but others are strongly xenophobic. MaxVeritas is taking for granted that the Creation narrative and Babel account is part of the tradition all other Biblical authors are drawing upon, when in fact this is not demonstrably the case, as alternative Creation accounts in the Psalms and Proverbs suggest. We emphasize the positive, non-xenophobic passages today, but this is no more clear than the sex issue, he is just cherry-picking what texts to emphasize. If he has a problem with the death of people from racism, what does he do with the proscription of the Canaanites in Joshua? This is clearly a mixed issue in the cannon whose complexity and texture is not reflected accurately in this post.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 12:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      Reply to Anonymous:
      Why are you whining about Christians and Mormons posting here?
      As for me I simply Googled for information on John Myers Priest & clicked on this, (see below) after which I found the Swilley article.

      Newark Archbishop John J. Myers Will Be Thrilled to Know Seton …
      Aug 25, 2010 … Educating America’s youth: 1; Newark Archbishop John J. Myers: 0. … It seems the game of priest hide and seek has not been only applied to …
      http://www.queerty.com/newark-archbishop-john-j-myers-will-be-thrilled-to-know-seton-hall-is-going-to-teach-undergrads-about-gay-marriage-20100825/

      Next time I encourage you to consider posting something of value that concerns the actual subject instead of fantasizing as to reasons why non homosexuals exercise their 1st amendment rights here, assuming of course their posts don’t violate the sites terms and conditions.
      Grace & Peace

      Oct 31, 2010 at 12:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      I encourage you to consider posting something of value

      I think I did, since I deconstructed your Biblical exegesis as incoherent. Would you like to reply to that? I have graduate degrees in religious studies and can read Biblical Hebrew, Greek, and eight other near eastern languages including Hittite and Ugaritic. I am well prepared to debate the subject and I totally disagree with your analysis and rationale.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 12:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      To ANONYMOUS:
      Not interested, your rude off topic ad hominem character assassination has burnt that bridge, and again you didn’t post anything of value,”concerning the actual subject”.

      PS-I harassed no one here,your accusation in that regard is totally unsubstantiated, therefore, it’s your shoe, put it on.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      Well, your post implied grammatically that homosexuality is Satanic or nearly equivalent (homosexuality is error–>error is secular and/or secular, with secular standing here for corruption/avodah zara etc.), so I think that is inappropriate for a blog for a community of whom you are not a member. There are much more gentle ways of communicating that idea, as well as more clear. This is exactly the kind of language the Pastor discussed above is speaking out against and which is causing the hostile environment which has produced so many tragedies recently. If I described your beliefs or behaviors as Satanic/ secular errors on an evangelical blog you would probably feel the same way.

      That is fine though, I take your equivocation to indicate you are unable to refute my disassembly of your exegesis. I wish you peace and greater compassion and understanding for others in the name of Jesus Christ the Lord.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 1:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      *Satanic and/or secular

      and everyone else should note I merely dissected your interpretation, which, if you claim this is off topic, means your post was off topic to begin with anyway.

      Also, in the immortal words of the Princess Pride, you keep using that word but it doesn’t mean what you think it does. Ad hominem means arguing some is wrong from a false premise. Like “Joe is incorrect about the math theorem because he is an adulterer.” Being an adulterer does not necessarily bear upon the question at all, and it does not follow that Joe is wrong because he is unfaithful. I claimed no such thing. You could be making unfortunately strident comments about gays and still be correct in your Biblical exegesis, which I still maintain you are not. I did not claim that your wording your criticisms undiplomatically had any bearing upon the truthfulness of your Biblical interpretation. Nevertheless I will pray for you at church tomorrow. Peace.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 1:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      *Princess Bride.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 1:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Anonymous, (#50):
      This blog is often deluged by Bible-weilding people who come to preach at us, quote scripture or —try to convince us Adam Lambert is the best singer *ever*! (Usually NOT the same people)

      The most common approach is to ignore them. Each new poster acts as if none of us here have ever been preached to or have studied the scriptures. They try to convert us to their particular brand of religion, and then depart back to their holy huddle…and their Amy Grant tunes!
      — —
      Hey get a screen-name and come back sometime soon. We could use you around here when the itinerant cyber-preachers come a’callin’! —Or when we need translations from/into Hittite or Ugaritic (kidding!) I can help you if u need a hand with Tibetan or Sanskrit. You’re on yr own with the Coptic texts, however!

      back to work, for me now….

      Oct 31, 2010 at 1:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      @Jackson: “What religion are you talking about? The message of Christianity is that all are destined for hell, except those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Failure to do that means hell, no matter how much you claim to love your neighbor. Wide is the path to destruction; narrow is the path to salvation.”

      Uh, that’s the Calvinist view, shared by many fundamentalists. It’s certainly not how Christianity must or should function, nor is it necessarily the majority view. You might as well say that every Muslim is a raving jihadist.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 2:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      @Cassandra: “atheism teaches hatred and oppression of 99% of humanity”

      No, it doesn’t. Richard Dawkins might.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 2:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @Brutus -“”atheism teaches hatred and oppression of 99% of humanity” -No, it doesn’t. Richard Dawkins might.”

      What the f*ck are you talking about???? Richard Dawkins is a voice of reason lighting up the darkness and cutting through the brain addling superstition caused BY religion.

      You gays who are religious, are to my mind, idiot turkeys voting for an early christmas.

      F*ck me!! You’re subscribing to vile belief system that directly oppresses you.

      Wake up, idiots!

      Oct 31, 2010 at 7:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @Cassandra – you are a f*cking nutjob

      Oct 31, 2010 at 7:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ait10101
      ait10101

      The Bible is full of errors. Even the first two chapters are inconsistent. Has some nice stories, though.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Queer Supremacist
      Queer Supremacist

      @Jackson: Amen, brother!

      But you misspelled the name of that death cult. It’s spelled KKKristianity.

      KKKristianity, along with those who spread it and enforce it, must die. And its sister death cult, Islime, needs to go with it.

      This guy just admitted to spreading lies and misinformation and is trying to make the multitude of wrongs he has committed right. He can do that by abandoning KKKristianity.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 11:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      @tallskin2: I’m a big fan of Dawkins. But he and Christopher Hitchens don’t exactly write so much to persuade religious people as they do to shore up the beliefs of people who are already atheists, and the way they phrase their attacks is pretty insulting and self-righteous.

      Not all churches oppress gays. Some are quite welcoming and love having gays around. And, quite frankly, you’re cutting yourself off from a great sense of community and belonging that comes with sharing worship with your neighbors.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      Brutus, I just find the idea of a sky pixie ridiculous and absurd.

      The sense of community is fine. But why does it have to come attached to sky pixie worship???

      I have always found religion bigoted and unpleasant. Here in the UK for example, whenever there is any anti gay point of view to be expressed it is ALWAYS some utterly horrid religious nitwit wheeled out to express it.

      I have found richard dawkins and chris hitchens (bow down saying “I am not worthy, I am not worthy”- [just joking by the way!]) very, very useful to provide ammunition against religious idiots who come out with bigoted opinions – not just against gays but against common sense.

      You say not all churches oppress gays. That may be true, but since 90% of them do, that’s not a recommendation for churches, is it? That’s like saying “Oh, one or two nazis were good guys”.

      And since homophobia in the West was started by christianity when the emperor constantine make christianity the state religion of the roman empire – within a few years the first laws against homosexuality were passed. And throughout the past 1,500 years christianity has, constantly, provided the intellectual grounding for homophobia and a renewal of homophobia whenever it starts to weaken.

      Hence my statement that being gay and christian is like turkeys voting for an early christmas, or jews voting for adolf hitler. ie utterly insane.

      If you want to be religious then please choose a less homophobic religion like buddhism, which is still nonsense but is, at least, more gay friendly.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 2:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      @DaleVM: The fall of Rome has been widely attributed in knowledgeable circles to involve many factors, among them widespread imperialism, and the advent of the then new monotheism. The provincials, or Christians, managed a coup in the social sense which led to byzantine laws being passed, and Rome’s eventual inability to govern itself. In other words, Christians won a “culture war” and therefore ushered in a dark age that lasted 1000 years. Sound familiar? The laughable idea that Christianity espouses something like a workable morality for all is a waste of time, and has been for millennia. Totalitarian sky pixies don’t pay the rent, and they never will without millions of frightened dupes to play along, dupe. Have fun puzzling over your contradictory 10 commandments, medieval you lame. And oh yeah, Peace. It’s not what’s eating you.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 3:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @Adman- excellent point, thank you.

      I didn’t mention the fall of Rome being caused by the Empire’s conversion to christianity, thanks for bringing it up.

      Further, it can be argued that the dark ages in Europe were caused by the christian church keeping reading, writing, knowledge of the ancient world to itself, in little islands of learning, in order to deliberately keep ordinary people ignorant and dependent upon, and hence pay the church, for their knowledge.

      England was the first european country to start to recover from the dark ages when king alfred the great (reigned AD 871-99) began a mass campaign to teach ordinary people to read and write in English, rather than Latin (latin was the language of the church).

      His plans, sadly, were stymied by the vikings who repeatedly invaded and laid great areas of england to waste.

      However, you can also mention Byzantium, the eastern half of the Roman empire that continued past the fall of Rome, and which was fanatically christian- and which continued for another thousand years and, because it was a religious civilisation held learning back, indeed contributed nothing to mankind: no philosophy, no great art, no great literature, no science.

      Nothing except f*cking icons.

      Oh sorry, the Hagia Sophia, the cathedral they built in Constatinople is impressive, but that is all they contributed.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 3:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dee
      dee

      God have mercy on us ( the body of Christ)!!!

      Oct 31, 2010 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Revemupman
      Revemupman

      WOW this really changed my view of the world. At least he came out and kept his grace with it. A lot of these Priest/Pastors usually get caught with their pants down literally.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paddy
      Paddy

      Just shut up. This is a wonderful story. A beautiful story. I’m really sick of people vilifying Christianity and religious people, using the argument that it’s all based on fairy tales. Even if it is, SO FREAKING WHAT. Feel free to malign any homophobic bastard who uses their sense of moral superiority to bash you, but otherwise, mind your own freaking business. Don’t turn around and use your sense of your superior intellect to bash those who wish you nothing but good will. I mean, you must think ALL religious people are really stupid (way to generalize, btw). You must think you are just SO SMART. Good on you for being tolerant and open-minded in a world of hate.

      I’m not religious in any way, but let me tell you something: people need spirituality like they need air. People need a sense of place and purpose in the universe, and some find it in the teachings of that horrible Bible. While many only know how to refer to the parts about wrath, death, intolerance, and limitation, many have explored past that to the parts about love and acceptance. And you have a problem with that? I don’t understand why you would run the risk of alienating loving, accepting Christians for the sake of spreading your hatred of a worldview you don’t even seem to fully comprehend. All you see is the negative, and you make yourself just as bad as the people who use religion for their selfish ill will.

      You don’t have to believe, and maybe you’re sick of belligerent evangelists, but don’t make yourself an evangelist for atheism, needlessly bashing people and treating them like they’re stupid because they want to have faith in a sky pixie. Not believing in God may have its uses for you, but it does nothing for others. So what. Get over it. Remember that Christianity has as much a history of goodwill, hope, and benevolence as it does of violence and hate, just like any other world philosophy. (I’m a socialist, but Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler.) So just shut up and appreciate a man who lives and preaches a message of hope and inclusiveness to those gays who aren’t willing to turn their backs on Christianity. Do what you’d like the intolerant Christians do and, if you can’t even try having an open mind, at least just leave them be.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paddy
      Paddy

      @tallskin2: So, you’re message to gay Christians

      “No, no, no, you are an abomination. You CANNOT be gay and Christian. Sorry you dummy, now gtfo.”

      Sounds EXACTLY like a Bible-thumping zealot’s response to a gay Christian.

      Nice. Five stars for hypocrisy.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @Paddy, you half witted buffoon, I assume you are a f*cking christian, yes?

      How am I a hypocrite?

      do you even understand what a “Hypocrite” is?

      Look up the word in the dictionary, you f*ckwit

      I call gay christians turkeys voting for a early christmas

      What’s the sound a turkey makes? Oh yes, Gobble, gobble, gobble.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 5:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Samantha
      Samantha

      This man is an inspiration. I hope this will be a wake up call to many people around the nation.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paddy
      Paddy

      No, I’m not a Christian. My family is Christian, and they have been beautifully accepting of who I am and the way I live. I wrote another response to all of this mess in which I pointed out that the quest for spirituality is an inevitable human one. It’s none of your business if someone chooses to believe in God. Really. A homophobic person who uses religion to bash gays obviously deserves to be put in line, but a religious person who supports and loves homosexual people — what negative thing exactly have they done to you? It offends you that they don’t believe what you believe? Ooookaaay… and? Why do you feel the need to bash people and announce their utter stupidity? Why are you so bent on alienating people who would probably go out of their way to make sure you knew they didn’t ascribe to the hateful, wrathful parts of religion? After all, the Bible is just a book, and it can be interpreted many different ways. This is both a strength and a weakness, but ultimately people who turn to it just want to experience a sense of place and purpose in the universe. So what if they turn to Christianity to find it? You don’t know their life or their story. You have no idea. You just need to back off. The history of Christianity is as full of light as it is darkness, but you wouldn’t see that because you’re a cynic who insists on embracing the negative and exposing it for everyone. Maybe you should be reminded that a worldview or a philosophy is neither its history nor the people who follow it, and it should be considered on its own for all its various interpretations. Many would say that Christianity is a message of pure love that has too often been corrupted. So it goes. A lot of Christians can get past that, so maybe you should too. Heck, I’m a socialist, but Stalin was responsible for killing more people than Hitler. Anyway, my response has yet to be published. Maybe I used a swear word I’m unaware of?

      The point is, you are as hateful and intolerant as any dyed-in-the-wool evangelical I’ve ever met. A gay Christian looking for acceptance would neither find it among many Christian organizations, nor would they find it anywhere near you, apparently. Instead of telling others what to believe, why don’t you just accept that another person’s path has led them to a worldview with which you respectfully disagree? Ah. But impossible. You think such a person is too stupid, as you think all religious people are irrevocably stupid, to treat with civility or simply ignore, and you are obliged to tell them so. Bravo, you are intellectually superior to everybody. You deserve an award. The moral superiority trophy, however, is reserved for the Bible-thumper. Sorry, you can’t have it, but you guys should talk. You have more in common than you think.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 5:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paddy
      Paddy

      @tallskin2: I wrote a long response, but it hasn’t made it past moderation. Maybe it will later.

      Look at yourself. You’re pretty hateful. I think you’ve answered your own question.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • slippy
      slippy

      I also watched his “coming out sermon” ,it’s long but amazing in it’s humility and openness. He very simply states that the two things in his life that he never had ANY control over and that were NOT a choice are his call by God to preach and his orientation. This sermon is not one of shame or of guilt but of honestly sharing his faith and his internal struggles. I particularly appreciate when he made a point that he was NEVER “in your business” and the congregation all spoke back to him that it was a truth. This is a significant event by a major religious leader who is not speaking out of fear or guilt and who is not crying for forgiveness. He is telling the truth to help others with their struggles. I can only imagine how the fire and brimstone sects are fearful of this Gospel of love and forgiveness. All the very best to The Good Bishop Rev Jim Swilley.

      PS To ALL the HATERS and pseudo historians and those that know THE word 100% ( and don’t you dare question THEM !!!)just watch the blasted video and try to open your heart

      Oct 31, 2010 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • roger ramjet
      roger ramjet

      @slippy: Your PS must be a clear reference to that harridan Cassandra and her ilk.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @Paddy – I am not interested in your long replies all I want from you is an explanation why and how I am a hypocrite

      Oct 31, 2010 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paddy
      Paddy

      @tallskin2: I think I covered it in my long reply. It didn’t post. *Shrugs shoulders*

      YOU simply cannot fathom the logic behind a “gay Christian”, so obviously there IS no logic, it’s stupid, everyone needs to know this, and anyone who doesn’t agree is an idiot. End of discussion. You malign Christians altogether, and without an ounce of tolerance or mercy. You verbally bludgeon people who would dare argue that there is anything redeemable about Christianity or people who would describe themselves as Christians, no matter how loving and accepting they are otherwise. You pretend to have higher knowledge of, well, life, without considering that there a 6 billion people in the world, and every one of them has a worldview, every one of them quests for purpose, and that a great number of them find it in religion. You think you are smarter than all of these people, having no idea of their personal lives or experiences. You ignore the brighter history of Christianity, or at least the hope and joy it brings into many lives, in favor of your cynicism, and you are oblivious of the fact that another person’s path just may have led them to something you simply cannot understand, and that this, really, is none of your business. Instead of going about your merry way, you feel you are obliged to comment. Instead of respectfully disagreeing and treating people with civility, you gnash your teeth at them and call them stupid, or worse. Do I need to go on?

      You’re a thumper under a different banner. A hypocrite.

      I am not a Christian, btw. It’s funny that you can’t imagine a non-Christian person who would argue on their behalf.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Soupy

      I love the way you project, it really parallels perfectly the way homophobes respond to criticism of homophobia.

      Mark
      “it always puzzles me that intelligent people can believe that the bible”

      Intelligence tends to lead people away from simplistic and shallow assumptions. Your puzzlement reflects poorly on you, not on people of faith, and you might consider the possibility that these intelligent people are right.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 7:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      MaxVeritas

      “Now, I would like for Bishop Swilley to explain to me where I can find the evidence that proves God genetically embedded all sexual orientations & races into Adam & Eve, who unquestionably are the entire worlds geneaological beginning?”

      Where is the evidence that proves that God genetically embedded all skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, innate talents, into Adam and Eve?

      The assumption that Adam and Eve are “unquestionably” is silly at best, and very poor theology given that the Bible contains two creation accounts, one describing the creation of many humans, and the account of Adam and Eve.

      “I believe heterosexuality is truth & all other forms of sexual orientation including homosexuality is error”

      This is heterosexism, the sin of pride in your sexual orientation, Max. Essentially, you are saying that anyone who does not the same as you in this way, sexual orientation, is inferior to you. That is sin. From Habakkuk 2:4 :
      “Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them, but the righteous live by their faith.”

      “that is made through personal choice.”

      Here you are demonstrating two sins – more pride, and the sin of bearing false witness. For GLBTQ people testify to their experience that their sexual orientation is not a personal choice, but something innate, yet you insist that you know better than they do the truth of their lives – pride then, in your intelligence, and false accusation in asserting that we are lying about our lives.

      “The most important part of walking in truth is the freedom it brings, conversely the fruit of error is bondage,”

      The fruit of condemning homosexuality is bondage, so your own position is error, sin, missing the mark.

      “My prayer for Bishop Swilley is that God will open his mind, heart & spirit to his eternal truth via the Holy Spirit….Amen”

      Here again we have more of your pride at work, in the form of your conclusion that Bishop Swilley, because he does not agree with your guesses, is wrong, and worse, in presenting your beliefs about his life as God’s eternal truth, when it is only your thoughts.

      Essentially, Max, you just committed the same sin that is supposed to have Lucifer’s – you made yourself a god in place of God.

      Next, let’s contrast two statements you made in subsequent posts:
      1) “Next time I encourage you to consider posting something of value that concerns the actual subject”
      2) “Not interested, your rude off topic ad hominem character assassination has burnt that bridge, and again you didn’t post anything of value,”concerning the actual subject”.

      The first one is a summary dismissal, and that is a rude attack on someone’s character, you dismissed someone’s contribution as worthless. Then you complain when someone else, in your opinion, is rude to you. Frankly, there is no ad hominem in Anonymous’ post. So you are sinning on multiple levels here.

      Additionally, your characterization of homosexuality is itself an ad hominem character assassination directed at millions of human beings. Coupled with your unwillingness to defend your sad theology, the image you’ve presented of yourself is less than flattering.

      Why do you look for the imaginary mote in anonymous’ post, when there is a beam in your own?

      Oct 31, 2010 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      Oh F*ck me, that bad smell indicates someone has let Cassandra out, again.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @-Paddy, I will ask you once again

      How am I a hypocrite??

      Do please answer, as I am getting bored repeatedly asking the same question

      Oct 31, 2010 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Brutus

      @Cassandra: “atheism teaches hatred and oppression of 99% of humanity”

      No, it doesn’t. Richard Dawkins might.”

      Actually, yes it does. However, I will acknowledge this for you, in the particular assertion you are quibbling over; I am directing criticism at the belief to avoid accusing the people who believe atheism directly – in order to practice my value of criticizing ideas, rather than engaging in prejudice in return.

      The posts here by tallskin2, and his/her peers, are ample proof of it. But more importantly, the only premise of atheism is itself a repudiation of the character and lives of most of humanity.

      Religions are based on the experiences of human beings, people have experienced the Divine, God, the Absolute, whatever name they use to express it. Atheism asserts without evidence that all of these people are automatically wrong about their own experiences, concludes that they are suspect as a result.

      The arguments and abusiveness of tallskin2 and Richard Dawkins reflect the core nature of atheism, just as the hate speech of homophobes and racists and other bigots reflect the core nature of their respective prejudices.

      Tallskin2’s posts rely abuse, and they reflect that foundation of atheism – that all religious people are inferior and worthy of abuse. As a doctrine, atheism merely denounces the testimony, character and experiences of most of humanity, in practice it maligns the intelligence, sanity, character and worth of most human beings. In trying to refute by abuse, Tallskin2 affirmed by example what I have presented.

      You know, homophobes insist that their belief is not hatred either. But those of us living under its wagging finger of malice and contempt recognize it for what it is. Since we know it is hate when they tell us that we are automatically inferior, an error as Max put it, it is also hate when atheists make the same claim about people of faith.

      Atheism is a prejudice; tallskn2, Queer Supremacist, roger ramjet, soupy and their peers behave exactly like homophobes and racists and misogynists and other bigots, not because they are bad people, but because they believe something that intrinsically demeans and devalues other humans beings, and such beliefs inevitably are expressed in degrading, abusive and malicious ways, because such beliefs are about hate.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “The Bible is full of errors. Even the first two chapters are inconsistent. Has some nice stories, though.”

      Just about every text ever written has errors, and the longer the text, the more likely there will be errors. You are dismissing the entire document on a standard that even your own post, as well as most written works by humans, fails.

      The first two chapters are inconsistent only when read literally, rather than as metaphor and allegory. Your claim then is an error on your part, shall we discard everything you ever post, say, write or do?

      Additionally, writing about science, in many disciplines, relies on some form of metaphor or other non-literal figure of speech to communicate information that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to express. If you read about quantum mechanics, Einstein relativity, and other areas of physics, you’ll find many passages that are less than accurate when taken literally, and even in conflict with each other, and yet, as a whole, communicate mathematical truths (to the extent of current mathematics).

      Oct 31, 2010 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Adman

      Blaming the fall of Rome on Christianity is as accurate as blaming it on homosexuality.

      The Roman empire fell over the course of several centuries, and a host of influences brought it down – to the degree that it can really be said to have collapsed anyways.

      Totalitarianism played a huge role in the decline of Rome’s civil power and authority, but that does not correlate with religion or Christianity. Further, Rome was not a perfect or even just society, and its collapse did lead, in time, to societies that were more just.

      The course of human history strongly suggests that empires, governments, cultures – use whatever term you like for the broad conglomeration of values, ideals, policies, etc that make up a distinct way of human life, have a life cycle, and all eventually are replaced when they no longer serve the needs of their people.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “Byzantium, the eastern half of the Roman empire that continued past the fall of Rome, and which was fanatically christian- and which continued for another thousand years and, because it was a religious civilisation held learning back, indeed contributed nothing to mankind: no philosophy, no great art, no great literature, no science. ”

      Homophobes often claim, against all evidence, that homosexuals have contributed nothing to mankind.

      As for Byzantine empire (because Byzantium is the name of the city):
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Culture

      “The Byzantine economy was among the most advanced in Europe and the Mediterranean for many centuries. Europe, in particular, was unable to match Byzantine economic strength until late in the Middle Ages. Constantinople was a prime hub in a trading network that at various times extended across nearly all of Eurasia and North Africa, in particular being the primary western terminus of the famous silk road. Some scholars argue that, up until the arrival of the Arabs in the seventh century, the Empire had the most powerful economy in the world.”

      “The writings of Classical antiquity never ceased to be cultivated in Byzantium. Therefore, Byzantine science was in every period closely connected with ancient philosophy, and metaphysics.[117] Although at various times the Byzantines made magnificent achievements in the application of the sciences (notably in the construction of the Hagia Sophia), after the sixth century Byzantine scholars made few novel contributions to science in terms of developing new theories or extending the ideas of classical authors.[118] Scholarship particularly lagged during the dark years of plague and the Arab conquests, but then during the so-called Byzantine Renaissance at the end of the first millennium Byzantine scholars re-asserted themselves becoming experts in the scientific developments of the Arabs and Persians, particularly in astronomy and mathematics.[119]

      In the final century of the Empire, Byzantine grammarians were those principally responsible for carrying, in person and in writing, ancient Greek grammatical and literary studies to early Renaissance Italy.[120] During this period, astronomy and other mathematical sciences were taught in Trebizond; medicine attracted the interest of almost all scholars.[121]

      In the field of law, Justinian I’s reforms had a clear effect on the evolution of jurisprudence, and Leo III’s Ecloga influenced the formation of legal institutions in the Slavic world.[122]”

      As with homophobes and their arguments about homosexuals, the reality about the history and influence of religion and particularly Christianity, is always far more complex and nuanced than most atheists on-line make it out to be.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 8:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nissa
      nissa

      @Todd Army:

      Unfortunately, these blacks are of the Jim Jones variety. They will swallow any flavor kool-aide as long as he makes them feel warm and fuzzy.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 8:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dallas David
      Dallas David

      @Doot:Barbicide is the blue stuff they use to disinfect combs

      Oct 31, 2010 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      @Cassandra: You’re a contemporary version of what every human was faced with in Europe during the middle ages: A lying carnival barker keeping the public record secret by presenting false propaganda. Your take on history is again, laughable. There is no proof to anything you say outside of Christian apologist circles, plus you can’t even digest your views in to any sort of politics. How did your vision come about again? oh yeah, from god. And it includes a type of salvation and living grace for people who are not heterosexual, eh? I’d like to hear you cite something that even comes close to your claims, but of course you can’t. Unless it’s some feel good wanker writing in the “Christian press” and warning us away from the dreaded “new age” which their views so closely embody. You’re a laugh, toots, were you home schooled or something? LMAO.

      Oct 31, 2010 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Adman

      “A lying carnival barker keeping the public record secret”

      Wow, that’s some fantasy you have going there. I cite a public source, and somehow, that empowers me to keep the public record secret.

      The insults you rely on, in place of evidence to refute my assertions, indicates that you cannot disprove what I have presented with facts.

      “There is no proof to anything you say outside of Christian apologist circles,”

      Homophobes routinely attempt to refute by dismissal information that refutes their lies by saying “there is no proof anything you say outside of homosexualist apologist circles”. Like homophobes, you are simply discarding any perspective or data that contradicts your self-appeasing theory. Any historian, like all of them, that don’t support your simplistic take on the history of the Roman Empire, you simply dismiss out of hand, assuming that because they are Christians, they are corrupt. Do tell everyone how that is not a case of prejudice and arrogance on your part.

      That, and your insults, may make you feel good, but, they do little to challenge my premise that atheism is simply another prejudice, and like all prejudices, it is dependent on falsehood and deception to sustain itself.

      How unsurprising to find that sexism is a component of your response as well. The problem with prejudice is that it has a tendency to expand – having worshipped your self by pretending you are superior to all people of faith, your ego begins to embrace the idea that women are also your inferiors.

      “plus you can’t even digest your views in to any sort of politics.”

      Homophobes often articulate disparaging, ugly fantasies that they’ve dreamed up about my abilities, too, Adman. You are only providing confirming evidence of the terrible, consistent parallel between atheism and homophobia and racism and sexism, etc.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 1:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      @Cassandra: “I cite a public source, and somehow, that empowers me to keep the public record secret.”

      You cite a public source for information about byzantine history, and yet it has nothing to do with my claims here, nor does it entitle you to dispatch Queerty users to do your further reading for you. Speaking of fantasies.

      For you to compare homophobes to non-believers is just the type of underhanded bullshit that xtianists everywhere are likely to believe, and you should be ashamed of yourself. But, how is a Christian to experience shame when they are so busy projecting like you do here ad nauseum? It must be like a dash of water to the face living in any kind of shared reality with others to you huh? But then you have “grace”, LOL.

      Do yourself a favor, and keep your soothsaying worldview and my name out of your mouth at the same time, do you understand missy? I figure I’ll keep it very simple, since your liable to twist yourself into a apologetic knot….

      Nov 1, 2010 at 6:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran
      Kieran

      This is the kind of gay story the newsmedia isn’t interested in covering…..no scandal and no obvious stereotypes involved.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 9:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • StraightFemale
      StraightFemale

      Bottom line is: If this business that he has fails, he will start another one. This is all about business. He might make more money if he has a new business directed the sales for gays. Let’s face it, gay people are always successful financially. Name 15 poor gay people you know. ….

      Nov 1, 2010 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Adman

      “You cite a public source for information about byzantine history, and yet it has nothing to do with my claims here,”

      For which you provided no source whatsoever.

      “nor does it entitle you to dispatch Queerty users to do your further reading for you. Speaking of fantasies.”

      I made no such statement. You, however, made no citation for your claims.

      “For you to compare homophobes to non-believers is just the type of underhanded bullshit”

      This is an empty dismissal, and its abusive character indicates that you cannot refute my position directly or honestly.

      How can it be underhanded, when I delineate example after example, and point out parallel after parallel? Is it underhanded to point out the obvious when it appears right here in a public forum?

      No.

      “that xtianists everywhere are likely to believe,”

      Another expression of prejudice from you that parallels the statements that homophobes makes – who routinely dismiss any criticism of homophobia as ‘the kind of bullshit that homosexuals everywhere believe’.

      “and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

      Homophobes say the same thing to me when I refute their theology, and to GLBTQ people in general. Shame is one way people try to coerce and dominate and control people.

      “But, how is a Christian to experience shame when they are so busy projecting like you do here ad nauseum?”

      More derogatory and abusive assertions that demonstrate prejudice. If you are trying to disprove my premise, you are not doing a good job.

      “It must be like a dash of water to the face living in any kind of shared reality with others to you huh? But then you have “grace”, LOL.”

      And ad hominem in the form of a derogatory fantasy presented as my reality. Homophobes do that all the time too.

      “Do yourself a favor, and keep your soothsaying worldview and my name out of your mouth at the same time, do you understand missy?”

      And now the classic bigot response of issuing orders. As long as you continue to post hate speech about people of faith, and lies and distortions about the history of Christianity, I will rebut your remarks and attribute them to you. Your condescending and sexist ‘missy’ remarks indicates that you not only a bigot about religion, you are a misogynist as well.

      “I figure I’ll keep it very simple, since your liable to twist yourself into a apologetic knot….”

      Or perhaps, you simply are unable to directly and honestly rebut what I have presented, and hope that being insulting and abusive will score you points with your peers.

      This is what comes, one might fairly conclude, of investing one’s self in a belief system, like atheism, that violates the foundation of human morality.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      What’s “Gay” about choosing homosexuality?
      As to the issue of homosexuality from a truth vs error standpoint I am greatly saddened by the erroneous logic of a few who encourage this lifestyle choice since study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone’s lifespan.With all the attention on smoking, which the National Cancer Institute says takes from 7 to 10 years off someone’s life, why not the same human outcry on homosexuality? Here’s a behavior that’s killing people 2 to 3 times the rate of smoking, yet nobody seems to care. In fact, we are encouraging and affirming individuals into the “gay” lifestyle. If you truly love someone, you would steer them away from self-destructive behaviors, rather than towards them, shouldn’t you?

      (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/ngmHAAD2010PressRelease.html)
      1 in 5 men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities has HIV; nearly half unaware

      Nov 1, 2010 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      What’s “Gay” about choosing homosexuality?
      As to the issue of homosexuality from a truth vs error standpoint I am greatly saddened by the erroneous logic of a few who encourage this lifestyle choice since study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone’s lifespan.With all the attention on smoking, which the National Cancer Institute says takes from 7 to 10 years off someone’s life, why not the same human outcry on homosexuality? Here’s a behavior that’s killing people 2 to 3 times the rate of smoking, yet nobody seems to care. In fact, we are encouraging and affirming individuals into the “gay” lifestyle. If you truly love someone, you would steer them away from self-destructive behaviors, rather than towards them, shouldn’t you?

      1 in 5 men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities has HIV; nearly half unaware

      (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/ngmHAAD2010PressRelease.html)

      (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/ngmHAAD2010PressRelease.html)
      1 in 5 men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities has HIV; nearly half unaware

      (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/ngmHAAD2010PressRelease.html)
      1 in 5 men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities has HIV; nearly half unaware

      Nov 1, 2010 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rose
      Rose

      @Cassandra “Prove it. I am interested in seeing you prove that an infinite – countless – number of cultures all have any belief in common”

      “your characterization of homosexuality is itself an ad hominem character assassination”

      ———————–

      LOL. Makes me chuckle, when religious adherents demand proof of others, while residing safely in a no-proof-required zone of ‘belief’ themselves. Is there a word for this particular combination of irony + hypocrisy?

      I chuckle, but I also get a bit of a gag reflex. It’s intellectually cowardly, this attacking others using the handy products of the Enlightenment and scientific progress like logic and debate and proof, but then running back to Daddy and hiding behind an invisible God and faith/belief anytime the same is required of you. You talk of proof when it suits you, then you denigrate the rest of science that isn’t convenient for you in your belief milieu and undermines a tenet of your dogma, re evolution, stem cell research, etc.

      Quid pro quo time, re God: Prove it.

      I’m interested in seeing that.

      Back to the blog subject at hand, I am somewhat in the middle. I have no problem believing two things at once. I can buy that he’s tends towards the palatable and decent end of the religious+gay tribe spectrum. Good for him, sincerely, on that. I can believe that he feels the bond of human love for both his wives, and his four kids. I can also believe he’s struggled with his homosexuality his entire life. Having had a good friend raised as a PK in a family chock-full of Pentecostal preaccers–and he was straight–just unfortunately a genius and full of the spirit of scientific inquiry–I can well imagine the pressures on him to set aside this fundamental part of himself and cast out his demons, and try to go straight, including marrying twice. I feel for the childhood Jim Swilley must’ve had, and the adult life he decided to lead coming out of it.

      Then again, I know (and am related to) gays who have married, and I’ve heard firsthand of in what respects gay-marries-straight love is similar to, and where it’s different from, gay-marries-gay, or straight-marries-straight. Is she a beard, his wife? I can imagine a man desperate to be accepted and loved and wanting to do the right thing as defined by his his Pentecostal family, and to dodge the censure of living in a culture bigoted against homosexuals. I can imagine a young woman who might’ve fallen desperately in love with a man who couldn’t quite give that same love back–close, but not quite–and yet who really thought she could deal long-term with a gay life partner. I can also picture the possibility of a woman who found the rising star of her husband’s ministries to be reason enough for a time to continue to go along with accessorizing his life’s charade and bask in the warm glow of being his right hand in the spotlight.

      I’ve been exposed to enough behind-the-scenes life of church power-brokers to pick up a vibe; Jim Swilley and his wife can be viewed as a very much more hip and cool version of another Jim and Co–Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Not that bad? No, not at all, but I do sense spin, and timing. I have no problem believing that his wife, in divorcing him, had honestly felt he should walk the walk. I can also believe it may’ve felt good to her, to have some circumstantial leverage to push him into doing something that might’ve been a bone of contention in their marriage for some time, who knows. Power, and all that.

      During and after a divorce, stuff is going to come out. The “rash” (I wince at that word) of gay teen deaths is likely truly distressing to Mr. Swilley. I can also see where it’s a convenient time to put the best face on his own story for coming out, given the questions, gossip, and heat from said divorce were fast becoming the writing on the wall, so to speak, for his realistically being able to stay in the closet any longer with respect to his congregation.

      Do I think he’s sincere in his religious beliefs and his was-a-closeted-gay-now-out/ted life? Yes. Do i think he knows how to work a crowd and time a situation? Yes. The man has helped grow a mega-church, and is a Bishop now, with multiple churches and missions, so it’s safe to say from this, and from watching the video, that he’s got the skillset.

      My BIL and his partner are gay. His partner was married to a woman, and they have a child. They still live a fiction with respect to his ex-wife, that they are both just ‘business partners’ who happen to share an abode for convenience sake. He maintains his ex still doesn’t know he’s gay. I have a hard time believing that, knowing him, but ok. But through a lot of conversations with them and other LGBTs, I understand the complex life of denying a part of yourself by living a straight marriage, and what it takes. He’s said how you can love a woman as a human being, a friend, and yes, even a life partner, but still be gay. He said in the bedroom aspect of marriage, it’s no different than any sex, in that any sex at some point can get you a little interested, and the difference you make up with a lot of fantasizing.

      I find religious leaders like Mr. Swilley, with their therapeutic mega-sermons and embrace-of-all (except atheists) religious mission statements more disturbing in one respect than the fundamental hardliners of their faiths. They sugar-coat religion to be more palatable to modern sensibilities (it *is* named the Church of the *Now* for a reason). Not that localized reformations are a bad thing, but I get a bit put out when my aforementioned gay BIL’s partner starts spouting his recent born-again witnessing (and crowing, in my opinion) about his new, special relationship with his BBF Jesus Christ the Savior, after he had a health scare and found God. It’s irritating to see him pushing an institution that has been such a force for hatred for gays historically, and to cherry-pick the parts of Christianity he likes, and deny the rest of it like oh pish that doesn’t matter. He bashes people with his Facebookisms about Deny thy Father/me in front of others and go to hell, and yet he lives in denial himself, about his ex, and about his relationship with the totality of his chosen faith. Talk about cognitive dissonance and holding conflicting ideas. I can’t as neatly ignore the conflicts using blinders and denial like he does, but ah, well.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      *********************** Homophobia *************************

      Literally: ‘fear of sameness’ (f. the Greek words homo = ‘the same’, and -phobia (fobos)= ‘fear of’) ;
      common usage is, instead, from an abbreviated form of “homosexaphobia” (a portmanteu of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘phobia’)

      Homophobia is a neologism coined to reflect a theory that violence towards homosexuals was rooted in an irrational fear of homosexuality, which in turn was a result of the “homophobic’s” own homosexual urges.

      Specifically, the word ”homophobia” was first coined by psychologist George Weinberg in his book ”Society and the Healthy Homosexual” in 1972.
      A possible precursor was ”homoerotophobia”, coined by Dr [[Wainwright Churchill]] in ”Homosexual Behavior Among Males” in 1967. Rapidly adopted and propogated by homosexual-normalization / homosexual-rights activists and advocates (groups and individuals), the term is now a commonly heard term in the discourse on “homosexual rights”.

      Unlike [[agoraphobia]] and some other [[phobia]]s, homophobia is not a psychiatric term. There is no such thing as ”clinical homophobia”,as it relates to homosexuality.
      The meaning of the term is ambiguous at best & deserves file 13 status.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ron
      ron

      @MaxVeritas: Be gone. You have no power here!

      Nov 1, 2010 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      Rose- interesting piece, although I don’t really understand your sympathy for the religiously afflicted. Everyone has choice to be religious or not.

      As for Cassandra (what ecstatic irony choosing a name like that for a christian! I wonder if she appreciates it? But that’s like wondering if one’s beloved dog really appreciates the TV prog she watches with you) I really wouldn’t bother arguing or taking her seriously_ I learnt that a year or so back. You can try logic, reason but none of it works. And I don’t mean trying to convert her to atheism, I mean merely trying to get her to stop ranting and construct a decent argument.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rose
      Rose

      Tallskin2,

      I agree, it’s a choice. Still, I personally understand some of its roots, as someone born into the pressure-cooker of a highly religious family. I have some empathy for that, having been there–though I took a different route out. Gay or not, my empathy doesn’t extend to agreeing with the promotion of religion, no matter how sanitized.

      As for the other–you’re right. What can I say, it’s a slow Monday.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      Rose, do please go on, she’s too stupid to realise she’s being baited.

      I don’t think anyone, not even Cassandra’s mother, bothers to read her replies.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 6:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      No. 96 · ron

      @MaxVeritas: Be gone. You have no power here!

      That makes us even so you leave first & I will follow.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “As to the issue of homosexuality from a truth vs error standpoint I am greatly saddened by the erroneous logic of a few who encourage this lifestyle choice”

      Homosexuality is neither a lifestyle, nor a choice. Those who continue to lie, by asserting both claims, are sinning against millions of human beings.

      Let’s consider the erroneous logic of claiming that homosexuality is a choice, for a moment.

      First, that claim contradicts the testimony of people with actual experience of being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and heterosexual. Even heterosexuals admit that their sexual orientation is not chosen.

      It is not logical, or honest, to dismiss the testimony of people with actual experience of something, including sexual orientation.

      Second, homophobes like Max have deliberately made life for GLBTQ people very difficult through harassment, punitive laws, social pressure, and exclusion from basic human rights. It is not rational to conclude that people, in the face of extreme oppression, chose to be gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgendered.

      “since study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone’s lifespan.”

      First, it is not rational or logical to use a study about lifespan to prove that something is chosen or not. Second, while professional homophobes have been fabricating false studies, and making false assertions about death rates correlating with sexual orientation, such lies do not indicate a moral or Christian perspective is at work.

      Referencing HIV/AIDS as proof of anything negative about GLBTQ people is intellectual fraud: the majority of all cases of HIV/AIDS, worldwide, are in heterosexuals. Max, your logic would indicate that heterosexuality is a deadly behavior. Factor in as well that heterosexuality leads to pregnancy, and that the leading cause of death for women, for most of human history, has been pregnancy, complications related to pregnancy, and long term post-pregnancy health issues, and you are making a case against heterosexuality.

      Don’t forget as well that the very first curse in the Bible directed at humans focused specifically and explicitly on the fruit of heterosexual sex – pregnancy:
      Genesis3: 16 To the woman he said,

      “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
      with painful labor you will give birth to children.

      “In fact, we are encouraging and affirming individuals into the “gay” lifestyle.”

      There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle. AIDS afflicts more heterosexuals than homosexuals, as does all of the other failings homophobes like to cite – alcoholism, substance abuse, etc. However, heterosexual males are disproportionately more likely to commit most crimes, including murder and rape.

      It is rude, Max, to simply ignore the rebuttal that was presented to you, and post more nonsense attacking the lives of millions of human beings.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      Rose, here you go, have fun

      Nov 1, 2010 at 7:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      @MaxVeritas

      If you wanted to, as the Scriptures say, ‘refute those who contradict,’ effectively, you might want to actually respond to the critiques several here have leveled against your previous statements. For instance, when a great Reformer like Owen or Turretin was writing against his opponents, he actually explained their position and then provided reasons to adopt a different position that interacted with the opponent’s position. Look for example at the section on the Holy Scriptures in Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology. He takes up the Roman Catholic position and interacts with it, and provides a different understanding. You have asserted positions that imply or presuppose Young Earth Creationism. This is a very problematic position to defend and you have yet to defend it. You have yet to defend your identification of the Bible as a racially progressive yet sexually traditional document. What exactly do you make of the proscription of the Canaanites in Joshua, references to the pollution of the nations in Leviticus 18, and frequent references in Apocryphal literature like Joseph and Aseneth, Bel and the Dragon, Jubilees, Tobit, and 1 Maccabees to the pollution and corruption of other ethnoi? There is definitely one strand of Biblical thought that is extremely ethnocentric and you are just ignoring that completely to get the interpretation you want. Instead of posting information about HIV rates, you should defend the exegesis of these texts you have provided. All homosexuals might be the worst people on Earth, and that would still be irrelevant for whether or not your understanding of the Bible is defensible or not. Rise to the occasion, like the Reformers, and set forth your case for your understanding if you really want to speak the truth in love.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 7:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      “The U.S Constitution does not outlaw sex discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a law school audience in San Francisco on Friday.
      “If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, you have legislatures,” Scalia said during a 90-minute question-and-answer session with a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law. He said the same was true of discrimination against gays and lesbians.”

      NOTE: In fact, 41 states have passed statutes defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and 30 states have added language to their own state constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      Scalia adopts natural law theory as per George, Finis et al. when he interprets the Constitution. Do you really support that position or understand where it comes from? I very much doubt any of these theorists would think birth control is okay with natural law, for example. Do you accept that position? Do you accept the epistemology, which is built upon Classical philosophy, from Aquinas, which establishes this worldview? If you do not, why do you accept that conclusion? Do you have a different chain of reasoning to get to that conclusion? Why not cite a theologian that gets to that position from your own worlview then?

      Nov 1, 2010 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Rose

      “Makes me chuckle, ”

      The moment I see this as someone’s opening argument, I know they have nothing of substance to contribute, and that they are arguing from a position of contempt and disdain. Of course, that is entirely to be expected from adherents of atheism, which is based entirely on contempt and disdain for most of humanity.

      I think your double standard is remarkably consistent, and it is ironic that you complain when I ask for proof of something, while atheism rejects the evidence that people of faith provide, and demand proof to suit their prejudice instead.

      Your game is transparent though – any claim that suits you needs no proof or evidence, while any claim you dislike cannot be proven by any kind or amount of evidence.

      “Is there a word for this particular combination of irony + hypocrisy?”

      Atheism.

      “. It’s intellectually cowardly, this attacking others using the handy products of the Enlightenment and scientific progress like logic and debate and proof, but then running back to Daddy and hiding behind an invisible God and faith/belief anytime the same is required of you. ”

      Nice, personal attack and insults in place of reason and logic.

      But here’s the problem, your accusation is false. Perhaps if atheism had some ethical foundation, something other than “everyone else in the world is wrong because I said so” – its flock wouldn’t have to lie so often.

      See, religion is not without proof or evidence, it is without proof or evidence that you and your peers will accept, which is a very different thing. If your ego’s were so involved, if you had less prejudice for people of faith, you’d acknowledge the evidence that is readily available, accumulating across the entire scope of human history.

      “you denigrate the rest of science that isn’t convenient for you in your belief milieu and undermines a tenet of your dogma, re evolution, stem cell research, etc.”

      Funny insult, since I do no such thing. Again, you rely on a lie in place of facts, on distortion in place of logic. Are you unwilling to debate what I have actually presented, or simply unable to?

      I think the way you project only negative and degrading emotions onto the lives of the Swilley’s is revealing and interesting.

      It parallels, again, the way homophobes project and only see negatives in the lives of GLBTQ people. You see only deception and trickery, they see only depravity and misery; neither you nor homophobes are willing to believe the people you malign.

      Looking over the rest of your screed, it too bears a striking resemblance to the malicious opinions that come from homophobes. I wonder how your BIL would feel about you, if he recognized your diatribe and linked it to your off-line identity. Probably much like the ‘gay friends’ so many homophobes claim to have.

      Continually paralleling the behaviors of homophobes is a poor way to prove that atheism is not a prejudice like homophobia.

      Tallskin2 is not helping either. When he wrote “the religiously afflicted.” he echoed the way homophobes refer to homosexuality as a sickness, an affliction. That is no coincidence, it reflects the same emotional state of hate and malice.

      And his statement “Everyone has choice to be religious or not.” also echos homophobic declaration.

      The phrase ‘to be religious’ describes the outer manifestations of spirituality, just as ‘sexual acts’ describe the outer manifestations of sexuality. Homophobes argue that because sexual activities are chosen, sexual orientation is chosen, and tallskin2 parallels that argument by arguing that spirituality is chosen because religious activities are chosen.

      Both homophobes and Tallskin2 and peers ignore what real people testify to – that their capacity to experience sexuality, or the Divine, are innate. Both have to ignore that testimony, because labeling something a choice is perceived, erroneously, as a basis for persecution and abuse.

      The hypocrisy on Tallskin2 part is that GLBTQ people, (assuming Tallskin2 is really a GLBTQ person, and not a het, atheist propogandist) reject the notion that choice has any bearing, i.e., even if sexual orientation were chosen, and given that specific sexual activities are chosen, it is irrelevant to the principle of civil equality.

      Yet Rose and Tallskin2 argue that choice is relevant when it can be used to advance their prejudice – just as homophobes do.

      “she’s too stupid to realise she’s being baited.”

      This blunt of assertion of deliberate, anti-social behavior on the part of Tallskin2, and possibly his/her peers, indicates effect of atheism on those who bow down to it.

      Having decided that the lives, experiences, testimonies of most of humanity are irrelevant and worthless in light of their own thought processes, adherents of atheism proceed to malign and abuse those people they deem inferior to themselves.

      This, of course, is exactly the same behavior that homophobes, and racists, and misogynists and other bigots engage in. Bigotry, after all, in all of its guises, is just a way to exalt one’s self by tearing others down.

      Tallskin2 and Rose, and their peers, have made this explicitly clear in their posts. There is no question left about the inherent nature of atheism, it is a prejudice.

      We can only question why people complain about the prejudice they experience, or claim to experience, while promoting another prejudice stridently and abusively. Do they feel that they are somehow so superior to all other people that they need not live up to the standard they judge others by?

      There’s one other point to bring up, from Rose, and an ironic one at that. Rose wrote “attacking others using the handy products” regarding using science, etc. But here’s the hypocrisy:

      Atheism provides no basis for any moral or ethical code, the very idea that human life has value, that some behaviors are wrong and others right, all notions of justice, come from religion. Atheists routinely discard the notion of sin, rejecting the idea that some behaviors are wrong, destructive, hurtful.

      So when Rose and Tallskin2 complain about Christianity and religion, they are co-opting a fundamental premise – the idea of right and wrong, that comes from the very thing they criticize. On one level, they are embracing religion, to the degree that it suits them – in its foundational premise of right and wrong. They use the part of religion that is useful to them – the foundation for judging some things good and others bad, but discard the notion that they are accountable for their actions.

      Of course, atheists on line play pretty fast and loose with science as well. Science in the hands of those who respect, recognizes that it cannot, by definition, prove anything either way about the existence of God. Science is limited to the material, corporeal, physical world – that which can be quantified, and God, the Divine, the Absolute, intrinsically transcends the data set, the physical universe, science has access to. How terrible it is then, that atheists on line so often rape science to prosecute their prejudice.

      But such is to be expected from people who hold everyone else in utter contempt.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 8:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “I don’t think anyone, not even Cassandra’s mother, bothers to read her replies.”

      Homophobes post this a lot too, when I refute their theology. Of course, if no one were bothering to read my replies, Tallskin2 and peers wouldn’t need to respond, and certainly wouldn’t have to employ insults and abuse.

      Whether it is a homophobe saying it, or tallskin2 and company, the level of abuse and contempt expressed in their dismissals indicates how worried they are that my posts are accurate, persuasive, and effective.

      The parallels between atheism and homophobia (or racism, sexism and other prejudices) are too consistent and striking to be ignored. Anyone who truly respected science, or logic, or reason, would be compelled by their own integrity to take the extraordinary similarity between atheism and other prejudices seriously, just as the striking parallels between homophobia and racism, or homophobia and Antisemitism, or homophobia and sexism, are compelling to people with integrity. We use those parallels to argue that homophobia is not a mere harmless opinion, the same process indites atheism.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 8:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      @Cassandra: Apples and oranges logical hodgepodge means nothing to me, and even less to you, I would imagine. How obsessed are you with pulling things out of ass? Oh never mind, you’re a xtian, I almost forgot. You wouldn’t know integrity and honesty if it jumped up and bit you. Wordsmithing is not even a strong suit of yours, so it begs the question, why do you bother? I certainly won’t, and it thrills you to be so mad at me because I won’t, doesn’t it?

      Nov 1, 2010 at 8:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rose
      Rose

      Cassandra: “I think the way you project only negative and degrading emotions onto the lives of the Swilley’s is revealing and interesting.”

      My bad. Never poke the crazy. Maybe that should be “Never poke the C’s.”

      ps I know by simply saying the above that you didn’t read my comments with anything but a Troll’s eye, since my point was I could see two sides to the situation, one of which was was not unsympathetic, even though the other was a bit more cynical.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 8:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Rose wrote:
      “My bad. Never poke the crazy. Maybe that should be “Never poke the C’s.””

      Homophobes frequently categorize homosexuality as a mental illness, and dismiss any defense of it as crazy. The parallels keep stacking up.

      Of course, if the only thing you can offer to refute what I have presented is a negative appraisal of mental health, what does that imply to others about your own? If you were more rational than I, shouldn’t you be capable of a more rational response than just “you’re crazy”?

      Worth thinking about, anyways.

      “I know by simply saying the above that you didn’t read my comments with anything but a Troll’s eye,”

      And there’s the requisite dismissal in the form of an ad hominem, as well as the fantasy of knowing what I did or did not do.

      Homophobes do the say thing, pretending to know the lives of GLBTQ people better than we do. The ironic part of Rose’s response is that she/he chose one sentence out of my admittedly lengthy post, and then commented not on what that sentences actually says, but on how it made her/him feel.

      Adman wrote:
      “Apples and oranges logical hodgepodge means nothing to me,”

      Another empty dismissal. This is not evidence of a reason based perspective.

      “How obsessed are you with pulling things out of ass?”
      Followed by a derogatory remark serving as a dismissal. If you intend to disprove my position that atheism is a prejudice, engaging in such behavior is not helping you.

      “Oh never mind, you’re a xtian, I almost forgot.”

      And there’s the blatant prejudice.

      “You wouldn’t know integrity and honesty if it jumped up and bit you.”

      And more insults in place of a substantive argument. Who thinks they can persuade people with abuse?

      Oppressors.

      “Wordsmithing is not even a strong suit of yours, so it begs the question, why do you bother? I certainly won’t, and it thrills you to be so mad at me because I won’t, doesn’t it?”

      Lots of verbal abuse, but sadly, it demonstrates prejudice rather than reason, scholarly effort, or a functional moral/ethical code.

      Homophobes use the same tactics, trying to verbally abuse GLBTQ people into seeing things their way. Rose, Tallskin2, Adman, homophobes never get anywhere flinging insults at me, and neither will you. Since I am arguing against abusive, contemptuous, malicious behavior, regardless of who is targetted, when you engage in such behavior, it doesn’t persuade me to see things your way.

      As with homophobes, I suspect that the only people who are persuaded by your behavior are your peers.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 8:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Rose, Adman, and peers

      I’ll help you out here. If you are genuinely interested in refuting my premise “atheism is a prejudice”, the following is what you should do:

      1) demonstrate how the parallels I’ve indicated are only superficially similar, and are actually fundamentally different

      In other words, show that it is very different when Tallskin2 calls religion an affliction compared to when homophobes call it an affliction. You would have to demonstrate that the diagnosis is demonstrably accurate to one or the other. However, you’d have to employ a standard rigorous enough that it only accurately proves that one is an illness and the other is not.

      I don’t think that is possible, but you could try. Unsubstantiated assertions will not be sufficient, and would probably backfire, since homophobes and other bigots rely on them, as we all see nearly every day.

      2) demonstrate that the emotional process in atheism is fundamentally different from the emotional process in homophobia

      3) demonstrate that the arguments atheists use are fundamentally different from those use by homophobes

      4) demonstrate that either homophobia or atheism is not about denigrating a group of people based on a shared trait

      5) demonstrate that there is a fundamental difference between the homophobe’s desire for a world without homosexuality, and the atheist’s desire for a world without religion

      6) demonstrate why people should take GLBTQ’s word for it about their experiences, and not take religious people’s word for it about their experiences

      And so on.

      Calling me names is not an effective argument for your side, since that is something that other bigots do as well. Attacking my character, distorting data, dismissing any data that doesn’t suit your purpose, relying on over-simplification, are also not helpful for your case.

      Of course, if you are just interested in being abusive and degrading to people whose lives are different from yours, stay the course.

      Nov 1, 2010 at 9:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GC
      GC

      Just to let people know, for those wishing to add Jim on facebook, he has now reached his 5000 friend limit. He took the time however to add a new Page for people to like/join:

      http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bishop-Jim-Swilley/171327139545694?ref=mf

      Nov 2, 2010 at 1:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      @Cassandra: “”atheism is a prejudice”

      Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. If you’d like to debate that, you’ll need a huge change in your own rhetoric. Shit flinging religious bores like you are never any better than what they bring to the table, and seemingly reasonable religious bores are no better. Funny how that works. Boring people with religion as a distraction to fleece them of their worldview, usually to enslave them somehow is an industry that is timeless and never ending in it’s quest to squelch any and all benevolent human industry. And that’s what you stand for, whether you know it or not. Efforts made on your behalf are a complete waste of time and energy as a result. It’s up to you, freak, as it has always been. The words and deeds of Adman, Rose, etc, notwithstanding.
      I don’t need to answer to you, since you are proposing a stifling of anything and everything that I do believe, and what I do pursue in life for the tiresome reasons that bores always have and always will. I’ll continue to enjoy your bullshit apologies for your hetero-lore you call a religion while you delude yourself that homophobia is any concern of yours as it affects the world we all live in. Because it’s silly, and I like silly hysterical trolls in religious threads on Queerty…there’s a bit of a back story to that, one you’ll never hear, because while you were shit flinging, you neglected to ask, didn’t you, xtian? Fucking meds needed at Cassandras house stat!

      Nov 2, 2010 at 4:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Ian: All I want to know is where to send donations to keep this church alive.

      Nov 2, 2010 at 10:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gary Burton
      Gary Burton

      @Jackson:
      Main line Christiandom teaches what I call the hot god!!!!
      The Bible doesn’t teach that. Get a copy of the book “What does the Bible Really Teach”!
      (Jeremiah 32:35) Furthermore, they built the high places of Ba?al that are in the valley of the son of Hin?nom, in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through [the fire] to Mo?lech, a thing that I did not command them, neither did it come up into my heart to do this detestable thing, for the purpose of making Judah sin.’
      Notice the false gods are making their Children pass through the fire.

      Nov 2, 2010 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • R Linklater
      R Linklater

      @Ian: real truth is that there are many who have turned from being a homosexual or lesbians to being true Christians, which one nevers hears on national media. This is because of the bias of the lame street media and spiritual wickedness in high places and it goes against the so called theory or spiritual lie that they are born like this.

      Nov 2, 2010 at 10:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @RLinklatter: You’re trolling gay websites looking for what, exactly? Dates? Hot photos? Spiritual affirmation that it’s ok for you to be gay?

      Nov 2, 2010 at 12:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Adman

      “Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.”
      And homophobia is the belief that homosexuality is wrong. Both atheism and homophobia are prejudices.

      The belief in God is based on the personal experiences of most of humanity, the recognition of the beauty and love of same-sex intimacy is based on the personal experiences of GLBTQ people. Both atheism and homophobia denounce and reject the personal testimony of human beings about their lives.

      a·the·ism
      1.
      the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

      And frankly, atheism as it is expressed consistently goes beyond lack of belief to asserting without evidence that God does not exist, which is a very different thing. Just as homophobes lie about the real nature of their belief, trying to soft-pedal it, so to atheist pretend that they merely doubt, when they consistently repudiate and reject the testimony of most of humanity.

      “If you’d like to debate that, you’ll need a huge change in your own rhetoric.”

      No. I don’t need a change a thing – I recognize the surface meaning of the word atheism as I dig into its root meaning and cause.

      “Shit flinging religious bores like you”

      Here we have yet another personal attack that is somehow supposed to prove that atheism is not a prejudice. Considering how much fecal material is in your own posts, adman, the “flinging” accusation was not a wise move.

      “seemingly reasonable religious bores are no better.”

      Followed by another derogatory statement about people based entirely on a category they belong to. You are not going to prove that atheism is not a prejudice by continuing to manifest prejudice.

      “And that’s what you stand for, whether you know it or not.”

      Homophobes routinely claim to know what I stand for, whether I know it or not, better than I do. Once again, adman, you are using the same tactics that homophobes use – making false, derogatory, arrogant claims about things in my life that you cannot know.

      “Efforts made on your behalf are a complete waste of time and energy as a result. It’s up to you, freak,”

      More personal abuse, indicating that your belief, atheism, is just a prejudice, not a rational construct or conclusion based on evidence.

      “I don’t need to answer to you,”

      Homophobes say the same thing.

      “since you are proposing a stifling of anything and everything that I do believe,”

      Every time you lie about me, you demonstrate that atheism creates moral bankruptcy. Ironically, it is atheists here on line that dream of eradicating religion and stifling everything and anything about God that everyone else believes. Kinda like the way homophobes accuse GLBTQ people of ‘forcing the gay lifestyle down people’s throats’ when they are the one’s seeking to oppress.

      “I’ll continue to enjoy your bullshit apologies for your hetero-lore you call a religion while you delude yourself that homophobia is any concern of yours as it affects the world we all live in.”

      Again, your guesses about my life are wrong, and demonstrate a complete lack of integrity and decency.

      “Because it’s silly, and I like silly hysterical trolls in religious threads on Queerty…there’s a bit of a back story to that, one you’ll never hear, because while you were shit flinging, you neglected to ask, didn’t you, xtian? Fucking meds needed at Cassandras house stat!”

      Verbal abuse such as the remarks above are a symptom of prejudice. You’ve again employed standard homophobe methodology. Obscenity is a sign of desperation.

      Adman, you are not going to make an effective argument that atheism is not a prejudice when you continue to post in an abusive, bigoted, dehumanizing and malicious manner.

      Nov 2, 2010 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cj
      cj

      sad! really sad! what next?

      Nov 2, 2010 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Walt
      Walt

      When R people gonna get the fact that when someone PROTESTS SO STRONG AGAINST
      Gays, they R either Gay themselves, want to be Gay with someone or R just extremely going with the stupid Repubicans that have nothing elseto get the people going but to go against Gays and others, when in fact the world need more pressing issues then WHO THE HELL IS QUEER. Get real, it take a REAL MAN OR WOMEN to admitt their Gay or Lesbian to live in a world of hate, than to “be straight” an hide behind a wife or husband AND to have kids. Now thats people who R ruining the Fabric of Marriage.

      Nov 2, 2010 at 7:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      @No. 101 · Cassandra

      “As to the issue of homosexuality from a truth vs error standpoint I am greatly saddened by the erroneous logic of a few who encourage this lifestyle choice”

      Homosexuality is neither a lifestyle, nor a choice. Those who continue to lie, by asserting both claims, are sinning against millions of human beings.
      ***************************************************************** There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply “genetic.” And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

      “What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

      From the American Psychological Association
      “[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors.”{6}

      From “Gay Brain” Researcher Simon LeVay
      “At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.”{7}

      From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
      “Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality.”{8}

      From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
      “I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.”{9}

      Nov 2, 2010 at 8:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Max

      You are compounding your sins.

      MaxVeritas

      “There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply “genetic.” ”

      First off, something need not be genetic to be non-chosen. Second, you are ducking the issue I raised – which is the issue of asserting something you do not know to refute people’s testimony about their own lives:
      “For GLBTQ people testify to their experience that their sexual orientation is not a personal choice, but something innate, yet you insist that you know better than they do the truth of their lives – pride then, in your intelligence, and false accusation in asserting that we are lying about our lives.”

      Whether there is a single genetic cause, multiple genetic causes, or a combination of some genetic and some in vitro hormonal causes for homosexuality does not change anything: homosexuality not chosen, neither is heterosexuality. GLBTQ uniformly testify that they did not chose their sexuality.

      Second, you are lying by cherry-picking. There are indeed studies pointing to a genetic basis for homosexuality, there is indeed evidence.

      The largest body of evidence is the frequency of homosexuality in other forms of animal life on this planet. Your claim ‘there is no evidence’ is false.

      “And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.”

      You are making false accusations again, and that is sin. Doesn’t it bother you in the least that you must sin to defend your sin of prejudice?

      “What the majority – – – [M]any scientists”

      Do you not see the deceit in turning many into the majority?

      You are relying on rather old research. Your material apparently comes from NARTH, hardly a credible citation. In fact, some of your post appears to be plagarized, lifted word for word from NARTH’s website. That is stealing, Max, which is a sin. Once again, your position on homosexuality is causing you to sin. Now, don’t you think it is odd that something you believe to be righteous is causing you to engage in unrighteousness?

      Your NARTH source cites the APA. So here is the whole passage, and a bit more of interest:

      “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.

      It’s important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.
      Is sexual orientation a choice?

      No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”

      http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

      So, let’s be very clear here, NARTH distorts the position of the APA, and your use of to claim that homosexuality is chosen, is a further distortion. You are bearing false witness about the position of the APA.

      NARTH also abuses the work of Simon LeVay. Worth considering:
      “Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation, published in 2010, details findings from over 650 studies on sexual orientation, including findings he had not considered. “I didn’t expect the avenue of research about birth order, that gay men tend to be late born in families, and that women aren’t as fixed in their sexual orientation as are men.”[9]”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_LeVay

      “From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
      “Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality.”{8}”

      This does not help your case the way you think it does, Max. All intrinsic traits can be impacted by environment. It was standard practice in many western countries to force left-handed children to learn to be right-handed, the fact that they could be so coerced does not indicate that handed-ness is not genetically driven. So too with homosexuality; in an oppressive and punitive environment, it is likely that some people with the genetic characteristics for homosexuality will act and even claim to be heterosexual.

      The fact of the matter is that as long as society coerces and oppresses GLBTQ people, all data about the causation, nature and incidence of homosexuality is skewed by the strong bias against homosexuality.

      “From Sociologist Steven Goldberg”

      “Goldberg and Brain Sex only spoke of results that were then known – the effects of hormones on brain development and hence social behaviour. Since 2005 however, studies have shown that sexual dimorphism in brains can be influenced by genes even before the influence of hormones in the womb.[citation needed] “Genes on the sex chromosomes can directly influence sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour, independent of the action of sex steroids.” [3]”

      The limitations in Mr. Goldberg’s knowledge make his opinion less valuable to your argument than you hope it to be.

      The remarkably sinful thing here, Max, is that you chose to believe second-hand testimony over first-hand testimony, with considerable irony in the case of Dr. Levay.

      Now Max, you posted from a less than credible source, distortions of less than recent data, from which you made widely false claims.

      What about the real issues I raised?

      1) “heterosexism, the sin of pride in your sexual orientation, Max”

      2) “the sin of bearing false witness. For GLBTQ people testify to their experience that their sexual orientation is not a personal choice, but something innate, yet you insist that you know better than they do the truth of their lives”

      This is important, Max, because you cannot know the thoughts of other people, and yet your claim that people chose to be homosexual requires that ability. Only God is considered, by people of faith, to know the thoughts of others, and so, in your pretense of knowing what really happens in the lives of GLBTQ people – that really, we chose to be gay – you are assuming for yourself a trait that belongs to God. You are making yourself God, and that is a very serious matter.

      3) “The fruit of condemning homosexuality is bondage, so your own position is error, sin, missing the mark.”

      Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 7:15-23, how we can recognize false teachers, false teaching, falsehood – good trees bear good fruit, but evil trees bear evil fruit. All of the fruit of ‘homosexuality is sin’ are evil, Max. You have been lured into sin multiple times just on this one website, by the belief that homosexuality is a sin. If you truly wish to follow Jesus, you will have to accept that ‘homosexuality is sin’ is an evil idea, because it only bears evil fruit, and therefore, it does not come from God.

      4) “more of your pride at work, in the form of your conclusion that Bishop Swilley, because he does not agree with your guesses, is wrong, and worse, in presenting your beliefs about his life as God’s eternal truth, when it is only your thoughts.”

      5) “Why do you look for the imaginary mote in anonymous’ post, when there is a beam in your own?”

      Instead of posting another diversion for someone here to research and refute, Max, show some decency and address the points that have actually been raised in rebuttal to your sinful claims about our lives.

      Nov 2, 2010 at 9:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Cassandra;
      Well done! Not only do you have encyclopedic knowlege of scripture, but a great handle on research. Being able to identify the misappropriated quotes and the NARTH spiel is a huge plus as well.
      Thank you.

      Nov 2, 2010 at 9:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      “Military Policy on Gays to Stand, Pending Appeal
      By JOHN SCHWARTZ
      Published: November 1, 2010
      A federal appeals court will allow the military to continue enforcing the law restricting the service of openly gay men and women in the military while a lower court decision that struck the law down as unconstitutional is being appealed.”

      Nov 2, 2010 at 10:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      General question: Since that without the shedding of sinless blood there is NO forgiveness of sins.
      What sin, past,present and future wasn’t reconciled through the sinless death of Christ on the the cross?

      BTW, Romans 5:10 is the full Gospel
      For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

      Nov 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      General question #2
      Can anyone produce evidence from my previous posts whereas I stated homosexuality is sin, or any comment to that effect?
      If so,please post a copy of the post # along with the evidentiary comment/s. ty

      Nov 2, 2010 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Copernic
      Copernic

      Man, this issue won’t stop going away.
      Seems to be happening a lot lately. Nice to see Swilley out himself rather than be exposed as a hypocrit like so many others have..

      But consider the alternative brought to you by your friends over at The Chicago Dope.

      http://www.thechicagodope.com/2010/09/26/gay-man-comes-out-as-an-evangelical-megachurch-preacher/

      Nov 2, 2010 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “Can anyone produce evidence from my previous posts whereas I stated homosexuality is sin, or any comment to that effect?
      If so,please post a copy of the post # along with the evidentiary comment/s. ty”

      Here you go, Post 45:

      “When one considers that life isn’t based on right & wrong, good or evil, but truth (Whose source is God alone, via the Holy Spirit) vs error (whose source is Satanic or secular) I believe heterosexuality is truth & all other forms of sexual orientation including homosexuality is error that is made through personal choice.”

      Sin is any imperfection, any failure to be perfect, any error. Error is a word commonly used in Christian religious-speak as a synonym for sin. The distinction you are making that right vs. wrong is different from truth vs untruth, is a false one, from a Christian perspective. Your message in post 45, declaring homosexuality an error, in a discussion tied to religious beliefs, is clear to everyone.

      Please be honest about at least that, even if honesty in other things escapes you.

      By what stretch does the actions of a secular military validate and affirm Christian theology? By citing the federal appeals court, are you not putting your faith in humans instead of God?

      I’m not sure what point you think to score for yourself with your citation from Romans 5, if you are excusing yourself for sinning against GLBTQ people by telling lies about our lives, or acknowledging that justification by grace through faith renders your judgment about our lives little more than sinful, pointless malice.

      Some Christians, theologians and lay people, assert that sins against the Holy Spirit, such as your assumption of possessing God’s attribute of omniscience, at least in other people’s lives, are the only unforgivable sins.

      Max, please show the courtesy that has been shown you, by addressing the actual material presented by those challenging you, instead of introducing tangential distractions.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 12:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @MaxVeritas: #124 &125:
      So far you have not rebutted Cassandra’s counterpoints, so you bring up new topics. She won’t fall for that amateur attempt on your part. If you can’t handle the first round, you’re NOT going to have a chance on the second round.

      So far, Max, you have neither a shown an adequate grasp of your own holy books, nor a reasonable familiarity with the scientific literature. You’re no match to C.

      Perhaps you should stick to the minor leagues: you can’t catch, throw, bunt,
      or field. Time to go back to remedial training camp. Good luck to you.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 1:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      @ MaxVeritas

      I want to second Cassandra’s entreaty here. Instead of posting more posts about tangential topics, let us actually pick some Biblical texts and exegete them, or some philosophical point like natural law and discuss it. Posting assorted factoids, not responding to criticism, and then posting more is not having a discussion. I already cited your statement back to you that Cassandra just quoted as evidence of inappropriate rhetoric, so this conversation hasn’t actually moved anywhere in 70 or so posts. Do you want to defend your statements or not? What exactly do you want to defend? Natural law theory, Reformed presuppositionalist apologetics? Just pick something, pick one question, any of those you have raised, and stick with one topic of debate. You aren’t scoring any points by seeming unwilling to respond to critique. On the contrary, it makes us think you can’t actually defend your position.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 1:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      @No. 128 · Jeffree

      @MaxVeritas: #124 &125:
      So far you have not rebutted Cassandra’s counterpoints, so you bring up new topics. She won’t fall for that amateur attempt on your part. If you can’t handle the first round, you’re NOT going to have a chance on the second round.

      So far, Max, you have neither a shown an adequate grasp of your own holy books, nor a reasonable familiarity with the scientific literature. You’re no match to C.

      Perhaps you should stick to the minor leagues: you can’t catch, throw, bunt,
      or field. Time to go back to remedial training camp. Good luck to you.
      *****************************************************************
      Your interloping comments are off topic & pointless, the worst part of which is your belief in so-called luck. Luck, like Harry Potter is fantasy that appeals to children.In short there is a God, and there ain’t no luck. You can’t find the word luck, which is error, (a word which Cassandra say’s means the same as sin, which is humorous if weren’t funny)in use before Columbus’s time period as it didn’t exist & no one even knows when,where or who originally coined the erroneous ethereal fantasy.Neither do you know if/when it starts or stops, be it in your life or anyone else’s. In closing you have become yet another accuser of the brethren, meaning myself, which is not unexpected & you can consider this reply my first & last to you if your comments contain no substance regarding debate of issues instead of your parroting the incessant denigration of my character as used by Cassandra.
      May God grant you freedom from error that leads to eternal truth.
      Amen…

      Nov 3, 2010 at 8:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      @No. 101 · Cassandra
      “Second, homophobes like Max”
      *********************** Homophobia ******************************

      Literally: ‘fear of sameness’ (f. the Greek words homo = ‘the same’, and -phobia (fobos)= ‘fear of’) ;
      common usage is, instead, from an abbreviated form of “homosexaphobia” (a portmanteu of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘phobia’)

      Homophobia is a neologism coined to reflect a theory that violence towards homosexuals was rooted in an irrational fear of homosexuality, which in turn was a result of the “homophobic’s” own homosexual urges.

      Specifically, the word “homophobia” was first coined by psychologist George Weinberg in his book “Society and the Healthy Homosexual” in 1972.
      A possible precursor was “homoerotophobia”, coined by Dr [[Wainwright Churchill]] in “Homosexual Behavior Among Males” in 1967. Rapidly adopted and propogated by homosexual-normalization / homosexual-rights activists and advocates (groups and individuals), the term is now a commonly heard term in the discourse on “homosexual rights”.

      Unlike [[agoraphobia]] and some other [[phobia]]s, homophobia is not a psychiatric term. There is no such thing as “clinical homophobia”,as it relates to homosexuality.
      The meaning of the term is ambiguous at best & deserves file 13 status.

      @Cassandra
      “Referencing HIV/AIDS as proof of anything negative about GLBTQ people is intellectual fraud: the majority of all cases of HIV/AIDS, worldwide, are in heterosexuals.”
      *****************************************************************
      Truth according to CDC regarding the source of new infections is that, 4% of the US population account for more than HALF of ALL NEW INFECTIONS>

      MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
      t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
      t While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
      t MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
      http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

      Nov 3, 2010 at 9:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      You can’t find the word luck, which is error, (a word which Cassandra say’s means the same as sin, which is humorous if weren’t funny)in use before Columbus’s time period as it didn’t exist & no one even knows when,where or who originally coined the erroneous ethereal fantasy.

      Where did you get that idea? That is at least stretching the facts. You will notice in the OED that the first attestation in English is 1481, where it gets loaned over, which is pre-1492, but I am not sure what you mean exactly by ‘Columbus time’ (when he was born?), but there are plenty of Icelandic and Germanic cognates going back further. The idea of fate or probability certainly existed in Latin chance and fortuna and other Middle English and Germanic words. The ultimate etymology is uncertain, but I don’t think you’re making any points here since I cannot see how this is at all relevant until you substantiate the claim you make which implies a Calvinist epistemology, which is not universally accepted among theological opinion. If you accept Open Theism, as LDS theology does, there could indeed be accident or chance. The concept of fate/fortune/accident/chance certainly predated Columbus, in any event. The entry is below for everyone to confirm:

      [a. LG. (Du., OFris.) luk, a shortened form of geluk (MDu. gelucke = MHG. gelücke, mod.G. glück). Parallel adoptions of the LG. word are Icel. lukka (14th c.), MSw. lukka, lykka (mod.Sw. lycka), Da. lykke. Probably it came into English as a gambling term; the LG. dialects were a frequent source of such terms in 15-16 centuries.
      The ultimate etymology of MHG. gelücke (:OHG. *gilucchi:OTeut. type *galukkjo-m) is obscure. So far as meaning is concerned nothing could be more plausible than Paul's view (Beitr. VII. 133 note) that the word is connected with G. gelingen (OHG. gilingan) to succeed, turn out well or ill, as G. druck pressure with dringen to press, schluck gulp with schlingen to swallow, ruck wrench with ringen to wrench. But morphologically this assumption seems quite inadmissible, and most scholars deny the existence of etymological affinity in any of these instances. Formally, the word might be cognate with LOUK v.1 or v.2, or with G. locken to entice (OHG. lockôn) and the synonymous OHG. lucchen; but no probable hypothesis seems to have been formed to connect the meaning of the n. with that of any of these vbs.]

      1. a. Fortune good or ill; the fortuitous happening of events favourable or unfavourable to the interests of a person; a person’s condition with regard to the favourable or unfavourable character of some fortuitous event, or of the majority of the fortuitous events in which he has an interest. Often with adj., as bad, hard, evil luck, GOOD-LUCK, ILL-LUCK. Also, the imagined tendency of chance (esp. in matters of gambling) to produce events continuously favourable or continuously unfavourable; the friendly or hostile disposition ascribed to chance at a particular time.

      1481, a1529 [see GOOD LUCK]. 1530 PALSGR. 241/1 Lucke, happe, hevr. a1547 SURREY in Tottel’s Misc. (Arb.) 220 And if to light on you my luck so good shall be, I shall be glad to fede on that that would haue fed on me. 1563 B. GOOGE Eglogs vii. (Arb.) 61 Let vs here what lucke you haue had in loue. 1576 FLEMING Panopl. Epist. 39 It was his hard lucke & curssed chaunce,..to finde [etc.]. 1590 SHAKES. Com. Err. III. ii. 93, I haue but leane lucke in the match. 1602 2nd Pt. Return fr. Parnass. II. v. 823 It hath beene my luck alwayes to beat the bush, while another kild the Hare. 1653 WALTON Angler ii. 60 Wel Scholer, you must indure worse luck sometime, or you will never make a good Angler. 1738 SWIFT Pol. Conversat. 18 Yes; Tom sings well; but his Luck’s naught. 1791 MRS. RADCLIFFE Rom. Forest xv, I hope we shall have better luck next time. 1856 G. J. WHYTE-MELVILLE Kate Cov. xvii, The Arch~croupier below, they say, arranges these matters for beginners; but the luck turns at last. 1882 OUIDA Maremma I. ii. 41 ‘He has got his deserts’, and Jaconda… ‘Luck always changes’. 1883 HOWELLS Woman’s Reason II. xx. 178 He bade him..get fire to light the beacon. Giffen refused. ‘No, sir; better not have any of my luck about it’.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 10:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      your whole comment also implies the sapir-whorf hypothesis which is pretty much discredited. Just because people don’t have a word for something does not mean they don’t have a concept. Clearly, in this instance, there were just other words used for luck, but even if there were not any, it does not mean the concept was necessarily invented in 1480–which it clearly could not have been because the word and parallel terms existed in all kinds of romance languages going back a thousand years before hand.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      @No 50 · anonymous

      I encourage you to consider posting something of value

      I think I did, since I deconstructed your Biblical exegesis as incoherent.

      *******************************************************************
      Again, you have burnt the dialogue bridge as Cassandra has with her incessant denigration of my character so entreat to your heart’s content.
      Grace & Peace…

      Nov 3, 2010 at 10:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      Oh, I am not denigrating your character. You could generally be a very nice person, and I would assume in charity that you are, who does not understand these topics or makes inaccurate exegesis. You could love puppies, open doors for old ladies, and have a smile on your face all the time, but that is not relevant to what you have posted.

      Since you still have not responded to any critique I have made, I have to assume you cannot, and I just want to make that clear to those following the discussion. There is no sin in being uninformed, but the scriptures do tell us to be ready to give an answer for the hope within us, and to give that answer with charity and reverence, as well as to, ‘refute those who contradict’. I am following the scriptures here is contesting your interpretations.

      I wish you peace, hope, and charity too, by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 10:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      Let’s just keep track here too

      1) the Bible is sexually traditional but racially progressive. I provided counter examples and there has been no response.

      2) appeal to thinkers who espouse Finis new natural law. No response

      3) Luck was made up in the 15th century. No response

      You want to defend any of those assertions, since they’re all quite problematic, especially the second one if you’re a Protestant.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 10:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      I have resolved myself to wearing your assessment of my being incoherent, and will say that while to your way of thinking it’s an endearing term of my character, therefore, that way of thinking renders my comments to the level of being valueless so there is NO point in belaboring my incoherency.
      Max, pro anti religion, be they Christian or otherwise, a child of: “The living God, known as Jesus Christ”

      Nov 3, 2010 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Scientist and widow of Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan said:

      “science has compelled us to wean ourselves of our infantile need for centrality” ? What a brilliant and elegant statement.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 12:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Max

      “Your interloping comments are off topic & pointless,”

      Technically, you are the interloper here, and your complaint above is hypocritical, given your own statement in post 49

      “Next time I encourage you to consider posting something of value that concerns the actual subject instead of fantasizing as to reasons why non homosexuals exercise their 1st amendment rights here, assuming of course their posts don’t violate the sites terms and conditions.”

      You can’t assert that you have a right to post here, and malign
      other people’s lives, and then dismiss others as interlopers.

      “the worst part of which is your belief in so-called luck. Luck, like Harry Potter is fantasy that appeals to children.In short there is a God, and there ain’t no luck. You can’t find the word luck, which is error, (a word which Cassandra say’s means the same as sin, which is humorous if weren’t funny)in use before Columbus’s time period as it didn’t exist & no one even knows when,where or who originally coined the erroneous ethereal fantasy.”

      This little fantasy is a pointless diversion, and your repeated use of diversionary tactics creates the impression of conscious dishonesty on your part.

      The concept of luck is very old indeed, occurring in many ancient cultures, including the Roman empire and Athenian Greece. While the english word dates to, possibly, 1480’s (before Columbus, by the way), the concept itself is ancient, and your quibbling about the specific english word, rather than the concept, is intellectual fraud on your part.

      (a word which Cassandra say’s means the same as sin, which is humorous if weren’t funny)

      I’m sorry that you find factual Christian theology about the nature of sin to be funny. I’m disappointed that you rely on empty dismissals, though I shouldn’t be.

      “In closing you have become yet another accuser of the brethren, meaning myself,”

      This is reviling on your part, Max, which means that according to Paul, you will not be inheriting the kingdom of heaven. More importantly, by responding with a personal attack and insult, instead of logic and reason, you have confirmed that premises that you cannot defend your position in an honest and ethical manner.

      It should matter to you that your position cannot be defended without sin, the fact that it apparently does not bother you is a much more serious issue than homosexuality.

      “your parroting the incessant denigration of my character as used by Cassandra.”

      Bearing false witness is a sin, Max. Please repent. You have maligned the character of all GLBTQ people. Now you falsely accuse me of doing what you have been doing from your first post.

      “May God grant you freedom from error that leads to eternal truth.
      Amen…”

      You are not God, Max.

      Now, regarding your dishonest quibbling over the word homophobe/homophobia. Your post to that matter comes word for word from http://www.lyberty.com/dict/homophobia.htm, which you did not credit. You presented that text as your own work, which is plagarism. Plagiarism is a form of stealing, and thus, sin. Please repent.

      Second, the dictionary:
      ho·mo·phobe
      ? ?/?ho?m??fo?b/ Show Spelled[hoh-muh-fohb] Show IPA
      –noun
      a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

      Your condemnation of our lives qualifies at hate, Max. You have characterized our lives as disease-ridden, asserted that we lie about our own lives and experiences. This is hate on your part, Max, and thus, the term homophobe does accurately apply to you as you present yourself here.

      Third, homophobes routinely seek to dismiss the term because it communicates that they are engaged in anti-social, destructive behavior.

      “Truth according to CDC regarding the source of new infections is that, 4% of the US population account for more than HALF of ALL NEW INFECTIONS”

      Max, you are still committing fraud, because the majority of all cases of HIV/AIDS are outside of the U.S.
      http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

      People living with AIDS, worldwide: 33.4 million
      At the end of 2008, women accounted for 50% of all adults living with HIV worldwide

      According to your source, and the CDC is not without bias, but never the less, your source claims 532,000 men who have sex with men who are HIV+. Out of the 33.4 million people who are HIV+, half a million are gay men in the U.S. You are ignoring the overwhelming majority of the evidence that is the AIDS crisis to make a false and abusive assertion, as well as exploiting the suffering and death of millions of human beings to exalt your ego. That is a horrific sin, Max.

      Now, you protested that you are not a homophobe, yet your exploitation of HIV/AIDs epidemic to characterize homosexuals as carriers of disease, is classic homophobia:

      http://www.avert.org/homophobia.htm

      “There is no single definition for the term ‘homophobia’, as it covers a wide range of different viewpoints and attitudes. Homophobia is generally defined as hostility towards or fear of gay people, but can also refer to social ideologies which stigmatise homosexuality.1 2 Negative feelings or attitudes towards non-heterosexual behaviour, identity, relationships and community, can lead to homophobic behaviour and is the root of the discrimination experienced by many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Homophobia manifests itself in different forms, for example homophobic jokes, physical attacks, discrimination in the workplace and media representation.3

      Homophobia continues to be a major barrier to ending the global AIDS epidemic. In many countries, Stigma and discrimination prevent men who have sex with men from accessing vital HIV prevention, treatment and care services. Tackling homophobia can help overcome this, and encourages gay men to be tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”

      The reality here, Max, is that the prejudice you articulate in public is largely responsible for the very data cluster – HIV infections in the U.S., that you exploit to justify your prejudice.

      Globally, more heterosexuals have HIV/AIDS than gay men. Globally, half of all HIV+ cases are in women.

      “Cassandra has with her incessant denigration of my character”

      Your false accusation is a poor excuse, and indicates that you are either unwilling or unable to refute what I have presented.

      The ironic thing is that denigrated the character of millions of people by classifying their capacity for intimacy as error.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      Let’s just keep track here folks for any LGBT teenager who may be reading this who feels overwhelmed by the hostility they are encountering in their daily lives.

      I and Cassandra have both politely asked MaxVeritas several pointed questions several times. The only ones that have ever been responded to are cut and pastes from the CDC. No theology has been defended successfully. I still have three questions at least hanging in the air:

      1) the Bible is sexually traditional but racially progressive. I provided counter examples and there has been no response.
      2) appeal to thinkers who espouse Finis new natural law. No response
      3) Luck was made up in the 15th century. No response

      We see now these will never be addressed probably. When I politely restate the questions, we get an evasion, which basically states that if I consider anything MaxVeritas says wrong or critique its accuracy, that is (1) denigrating his character and thus (2) making discussion irrelevant. That is a convenient way to avoid having to defend incorrect assertions. I quoted passages of scripture:
      “be ready to give an answer, and give that answer with charity”
      “refute those who contradict”
      These are ignored without any comment as if they did not matter.

      I want to bear my Christian witness as does Max. I too am a child of the true and living God, as are you, any LGBT person that may be standing at the sidelines here. We know that God knew us from before our births, in the womb. I want to tell you in know uncertain terms, my witness that this same eternal God, who gives life to the living and compassionates the dead, loves you, because of, and not in spite of, who you are. May His blessings and care shine upon your countenance, all the days of your life, and never loose sight of that great hope in His abiding love.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Watch this clip if you like. It’s a scientist discussing faith.

      http://tinyurl.com/yh6yujz

      Nov 3, 2010 at 5:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      Note: While using the word loose in place of lose is certainly error,in spite of what you may have heard earlier, error is NOT a sin, there is but one sin that wasn’t reconciled at the cross through Christ’s death that is unpardonable, and that is,”unbelief”.

      No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
      1 John 3:9

      8“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me”
      John:16:8-9

      “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly”
      Gal 2:21

      Nov 3, 2010 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      there is but one sin that wasn’t reconciled at the cross through Christ’s death that is unpardonable, and that is,”unbelief”.

      That is a traditional RC understanding of the ‘unpardonable sin’. Reformed theologians have a different understanding of the Sin against the Holy Ghost, as do LDS. Why don’t you actually quote the passage which deals with that question if you want to address that issue? If you don’t mean the sin against the Holy Ghost, why would you say there are unpardonable sins, when the scriptures clearly state that this is the one unpardonable sin–the sin against the Holy Ghost?

      and Cassandra does have a point anyway. The Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Hittite (just that I can think of off the top of my head), words for sin also mean ‘to miss the mark’ like not hitting the bulls’ eye on a target. You could interpret that sense to mean something like error. This is all a tangent anyway, though. What does the nature of sin have to do with any of the exegetical issues that keep getting pushed aside. Let’s go again:

      1) the Bible is sexually traditional but racially progressive. I provided counter examples and there has been no response.
      2) appeal to thinkers who espouse Finis new natural law. No response
      3) Luck was made up in the 15th century. No response

      Still there. Still hanging. Still unanswered. You have not given a reason for the hope. You have not refuted those who contradict. Nevertheless, peace and grace.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      Here’s a NT lexicon entry for hamartia, the common NT word for sin. In Classical sources it can mean character flaw as well. Notice to err, be mistaken, miss the mark or go astray. Hebrew hata and Hittite wastai have similar ranges of meaning.

      The New Testament Greek Lexicon

      Strong’s Number: 266 a(martiða
      Original Word Word Origin
      a(martiða from (264)
      Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
      Hamartia ham-ar-tee’-ah
      Parts of Speech TDNT
      Noun Feminine 1:267,44
      Definition

      equivalent to 264
      to be without a share in
      to miss the mark
      to err, be mistaken
      to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
      to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
      that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
      collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many
      Translated Words
      KJV (174) – offense, 1; sin, 172; sinful, 1;
      NAS (173) – sin, 96; sinful, 2; sins, 75;

      Nov 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “there is but one sin that wasn’t reconciled at the cross through Christ’s death that is unpardonable, and that is,”unbelief”.”

      Odd, that is not what Jesus said:

      Matthew 12:31-31 (New International Version)

      30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

      If unbelief were unforgivable, then no one could be saved, because while the capacity for spirituality is innate, knowledge of Christ as the Christ, is not. Max, your comment is either poorly expressed, or error on your part.

      “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
      1 John 3:9″

      Let’s begin by acknowledging that Max has repeatedly sinned against people here, and against GLBTQ people in general.

      Then the passage in context:
      “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

      7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.
      More on Love and Hatred
      11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters,[b] if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. ”

      Max’s claim, that the innate capacity for love and intimacy expressed by GLBTQ people is ‘error’, is an expression of hate, which makes Max a murderer.

      I’m guessing that Max is using this passage to say that he is incapable of sin, and therefore, his abuse of people here is not sin. But that is not standard Christian theology, not by a long shot. Christianity recognizes that Christians remain, in life, imperfect and capable of sin, and the passage Max lifts out of context refers to the new nature endowed upon any Christian, that new nature is incorruptible, while our earthly and imperfect one is still capable of sin, as Max has shown by example.

      However, some legalistic Christians do use this passage to convict by proof-text anyone who does not live up to their theology, while claiming that they themselves are above sin and their actions, no matter how reprehensible, are not sin.

      Further to that, http://bible.cc/1_john/3-9.htm

      “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin – This passage must either mean that they who are born of God, that is, who are true Christians, do not sin habitually and characteristically, or that everyone who is a true Christian is absolutely perfect, and never commits any sin. If it can be used as referring to the doctrine of absolute perfection at all, it proves, not that Christians may be perfect, or that a “portion” of them are, but that all are. But who can maintain this? Who can believe that John meant to affirm this? Nothing can be clearer than that the passage has not this meaning, and that John did not teach a doctrine so contrary to the current strain of the Scriptures, and to fact; and if he did not teach this, then in this whole passage he refers to those who are habitually and characteristically righteous. . . . And he cannot sin – Not merely he will not, but he cannot; that is, in the sense referred to. This cannot mean that one who is renewed has not physical ability to do wrong, for every moral agent has; nor can it mean that no one who is a true Christian never does, in fact, do wrong in thought, word, or deed, for no one could seriously maintain that: but it must mean that there is somehow a certainty as absolute “as if” it were physically impossible, that those who are born of God will not be characteristically and habitually sinners; that they will not sin in such a sense as to lose all true religion and be numbered with transgressors; that they will not fall away and perish. Unless this passage teaches that no one who is renewed ever can sin in any sense; or that everyone who becomes a Christian is, and must be, absolutely and always perfect, no words could more clearly prove that true Christians will never fall from grace and perish. How can what the apostle here says be true, if a real Christian can fall away and become again a sinner?

      Because he is born of God – Or begotten of God. God has given him, by the new birth, real, spiritual life, and that life can never become extinct. ”

      Of course, Max raises this as yet another diversionary tactic. But, there is a side of it that works against his purpose. There are gay and lesbian Christians, millions of them. If Max applies the simplistic interpretation, then their intimate relationships cannot be sin, no matter what Max thinks. If he argues that they are not real Christians, then he has sinned himself, and by his own standard, proven himself a false Christian. Or he can acknowledge that yet again, the Scripture makes his condemnation of homosexuality irrelevant to the issue of salvation.

      As does this:
      “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly”
      Gal 2:21

      The condemnation of homosexuality, Max’s claim that it is error, comes through human interpretation of the Law, yet Paul makes it clear, as Christ did, that righteousness is not the product of the Law, but the product of grace. Grace is the quality utterly missing from anti-gay theology and from Max’s derogatory claims about the lives of millions of human beings.

      Nov 3, 2010 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anonymous
      anonymous

      @Cassandra

      Good job fleshing that out–I think we see here the issue is not really even that he references the Sin against the Holy Ghost, without actually citing the passage, but that there are a variety of opinions about this subject (that I can think of off the top of my head–(1) Reformed ‘attributing the works of the son of God to the devil with full insight’, Catholic/Orthodox ‘final impenitence–you cannot be saved without repenting’, I had a Franciscan professor who claimed the passage meant something like ‘this is your last chance to repent’, and LDS ‘if you have a personal revelation and then apostasize (addressed in the king follett funeral discourse ‘a man has to see the sun and deny it is shinning’), and he doesn’t actually seem to have one in mind that he wants to defend (his would imply the standard catholic/orthodox view of final impenitence, but he refuses to defend references to Finis’ new natural law, so who knows what perspective he is implying, really), which makes it impossible to interact with because there’s nothing to interact with.

      In any event, that has nothing to do with the subject since no one is claiming homosexuality is the Sin against the Holy Ghost, or that this is somehow intimately tied up with any pertinent discussion of homosexuality and religion. Like the semantic quibbling about the definition of sin, and the date of the word and concept of luck, which I think I have shown definitely you are correct about by reference to standard lexical sources, is just another side topic.

      So it continues…

      Nov 3, 2010 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Theo
      Theo

      I am deeply impressed.

      Nov 4, 2010 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      Re: 1.4% of Adults Homosexual?
      Again, this is just “The Gay Invention” exposed as a fraud at
      http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f

      “Homosexuality Is a Linguistic as Well as a Moral Error”

      Nov 4, 2010 at 2:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Re: 1.4% of Adults Homosexual?
      Again, this is just “The Gay Invention” exposed as a fraud”

      Actually, the 1.4% number is a claim perpetuated by homophobes. Kinsey, and several subsequent studies, support the 10% number, while studies by conservative research groups find lower numbers, and only GBLTQ people acknowledge that as long as there is overt, punitive prejudice against gays and lesbians in society, all studies will be skewed toward a lower than actual number.

      “http://www.touchstonemag.com/a…..8-10-036-f”

      “For thousands of years, until the late 1800s, our ancestors were completely oblivious to the existence of a fundamentally distinct class of human beings. Indeed, during the long period of Greco-Roman antiquity and more than a millennium and a half of Christian civilization, man did not even have a name for this class.”

      This is an error of logic, asserting by implication that anything that is not named, does not exist. A truly irrational premise.

      The ancient greeks did indeed acknowledge that some people were only attracted to others of their own gender, as did a number of indigenous peoples in the America’s.

      “What might be called the philological evidence calls this notion into question. If it were true, someone would long ago have given this class a name. That no one did until very recently suggests that the notion is not true.”

      This is irrational, if only because it is not necessary to have a single term for a concept to express the concept. It is also inaccurate, for greek, by Paul’s day, had two terms for men who have sex with men – erestes and eranamos. The author of the citation makes false claims about those words, asserting that they only applied to pederasty, when that it not the case.

      The entire work is a case of semantic chicanery, a poor attempt to refute the experience of millions of people by cherry-picking a few sources, and then misrepresenting them. It reflects poorly on North Carolina State University, and it would be foolish, at best, to rely on the opinion of a professor of Renaissance Literature to decide matters of human sexuality.

      Once again, Max has relied on the moving target approach to debate – constantly retreating from one challenged claim by pushing forward some other dubious and distorted assertion.

      It is clear that none of his material can actually be defended, and each offering is simply an opportunity to gratuitously revile millions of human beings for his own personal pleasure.

      I wonder when Max will address the fact that he is reviling millions of people, and so, according to Paul, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

      Nov 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      As I predicted above, this thread has devolved into a stroke session for apologists who we have only rewarded by our assumption that any of them are worthy as humans to contribute anything but fraud, and noise to any discussion. What can really be said to a religionist who spends their life disproving the intended purpose of their creed by inventing new and more hatefilled means to deny hospitality to people they consider and “other”. It boggles the mind how we give these people institutional freedom of religion, when clearly religion and god, christ, my dog’s ass, whatever, can clearly be defined as “religious tradition”.
      Cassandra, Anonymous, and Max Veritas, you’re better suited to staring at the sun, or twirling plates in the corner than you are opining any any known system of thought that applies to the human condition. You’re own words betray you, and the phenomenon is making you fucking retarded. Conform to your own arguments, and we’ll see who will triumph in god’s will, or whatever other nonsensical assertions you’d like to make. Heterosexuality supremacy depends on mediocrities like you, but why are you so proud of that? It’s just impossible to stick up and defend of your crap, including the beliefs of the man in the video, since he’ll only feed you your certainties as well, unfortunately. It’s ironic that you can reduce the entire human imagination to a modernist standard of hetero conformity and call it god’s will, since if you even believed in your own words, you’d realize you can only provide comedy, and a safe place for people who are walking backwards through life. Good luck with that.

      Nov 4, 2010 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      More hate speech from adman to prove that atheism is a prejudice, as if more were needed. Let’s take a little look inside adman’s remarks:

      “any of them are worthy as humans ”

      According to adman, religious people are not worthy to participate in society. Funny, but homophobes say the same thing about homosexuals. Tell us again how different you are from homophobes, adman.

      “What can really be said to a religionist who spends their life disproving the intended purpose of their creed”

      What can be said about the ethical lapse of employing a creed one rejects the very validity of? Deceitful? Inconsistent? Rhetorical game-playing? All of the above.

      “It boggles the mind how we give these people institutional freedom of religion,”

      Here again we find the totalitarian call for domination and suppression that lurks within atheism, as Adman agitates to eradicate the civil liberties of people of faith.

      “when clearly religion and god, christ, my dog’s ass, whatever, can clearly be defined as “religious tradition”.”

      And of course, crude and offensive verbiage presented for no purpose but to be offensive and abusive, is something we never, ever find in bigotry – oh, actually, such behavior is a diagnostic symptom of bigotry.

      “Cassandra, Anonymous, and Max Veritas, you’re better suited to staring at the sun, or twirling plates in the corner”

      And now the standard bigot tactic of dismissal by personal attack. How exactly is that supposed to prove that atheism is anything more than, or other than, a degrading and dehumanizing prejudice?

      “you are opining any any known system of thought that applies to the human condition.”

      Here, Adman simply dismisses all of the material out of hand, indicating that a researched, and accurately articulated rebuttal is not within his skill set.

      “You’re own words betray you, and the phenomenon is making you fucking retarded.”

      I think it is sad when someone who cannot, or will not, make the effort necessary to match the thought I have put forth, decides to insult my intelligence. Adman, since you apparently cannot disprove with evidence or reason what I have presented, and you call me “retarded” – an insult that civilized and decent people no longer use, by the way – what does that say about your own intelligence? You are insulting yourself.

      And of course, obscenity and insults are the refuge of those dominated by their anger and hate, so their presence in adman’s post does nothing to refute my assertion that atheism is nothing more than an ugly and malicious prejudice.

      Keep in mind, looking at adman’s insults here, that all prejudices are about tearing other people down, say by calling them “retarded” in order to inflate one’s own ego.

      “on mediocrities like you,”

      More of that ego-driven need to tear down others publicly in order to lift one’s self up.

      “It’s ironic that you can reduce the entire human imagination to a modernist standard of hetero conformity”

      As opposed to a atheist “modernist standard” of reducing the entire human experience, including imagination and emotion, to more or less random chemical reactions determined by probabilities expressed by sub-atomic particles, reflecting nothing more than mathematically expressed laws of physics?

      “you’d realize you can only provide comedy,”

      And another dehumanizing dismissal, demonstrating only contempt for an entire class of people based on who they are. Yet again, adman demonstrates that he is articulating a prejudice, and so a ethical peer of any homophobe.

      Nov 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      But aren’t you articulating a prejudice against atheists? Aren’t you as guilty of judging non-believers as the people you so strenuously argue against? Isn’t that the tactics of a homophobe?

      Nov 4, 2010 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “But aren’t you articulating a prejudice against atheists? Aren’t you as guilty of judging non-believers as the people you so strenuously argue against? Isn’t that the tactics of a homophobe?”

      Do you really want to go there, Soupy? Think really hard about this premise of yours?

      You are implying, arguing, suggestion, that criticism of a prejudice is itself a prejudice. Think really carefully.

      That means that criticism of homophobia is prejudice too. It means that when you, or anyone else, criticizes homophobes like Fred Phelps, you are guilty of prejudice in return. Aren’t you, Queerty and its readers, just as as guilty of judging homophobes as the homophobes themselves are guilty of judging GLBTQ people?

      Or is there a difference between being critical of any constructed opinion about other people’s lives, and being critical of those people’s lives.

      Atheism and homophobia are criticisms of other people, both attack and dismiss the intrinsic worth of a group of people.

      Criticism of atheism is like criticism of homophobia – addressing a particular constructed negative opinion about people.

      Do you get the difference between criticizing an opinion or idea or though – like atheism or homophobia, and criticizing people based on a shared trait?

      No doubt, you or one of your peers is going to argue that religion is just a constructed opinion, idea or thought, but that is a false claim. Religion is the accumulated experiences of most of humanity, and while it includes constructed opinions about those experience, etc, it is based on experiences; just as homosexuality has both an experiential component and constructed opinions about those experiences.

      Remember, Soupy, that homophobes routinely dismiss any criticism of their own ugly beliefs and claims about GLBTQ people as prejudice, now you are trying to do the same thing, suggesting that criticism of the ugly beliefs and claims about people of faith is prejudice.

      Give this a try: explain why criticizing homophobia is not prejudice – and do so in a way that does not also apply to atheism.

      Nov 4, 2010 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      “Kinsey was a fanatical religious bigot, inflamed with hatred for Christians, Jews, and traditional morality.”

      It’s a part of the agenda of gradualism where Foundations (and the global elite) used to change societal mores. In 1948, “illegitimacy,” abortion and rape rates were some hundreds of
      percentiles less than today. This doesn’t mean that all things in 1948 were perfect. They weren’t. 200,000 copies of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male were sold in 2 months of its
      publication. Even proponents of the pervert Kinsey admit that he skewed his sexual results by having an inordinate number of test subjects who were prostitutes, criminals, sexual deviants,
      etc. to be used as normal examples of the American Population. When you have this, the result will be skewed.Kinsey manufactured a “10 to 37 percent” homosexual male population in
      order to normalize homosexuality (You don’t use lies in try to promote any cause). The 1948 book claimed that 69 percent of men visited prostitutes, 50 percent did adultery, and 95% of American males regularly indulged in sexual deviancy, which is a total lie.
      Alfred Kinsey falsely assumed that most people were bisexuals and all men masturbate. He manufactured a female promiscuity myth that led to “no fault divorce,” resulting in collapsed
      marriages and largely victimized women and children. He claimed (in his studies of women during the 1950’s) that 50 percent of women had sex before marriage — shocking in the 1950s — 26 percent practiced adultery, and 87 percent of pregnant single women and 25 percent of married ones were having abortions. Kinsey falsely believed that sexual
      promiscuity was fine when even folks from across the political spectrum realize that sexual promiscuity is wrong (and it can be dangerous in this day and age). His data has been
      opposed back then by conservatives and even leftist scientists like Abraham Maslow, Lionel Trilling and even Margaret Mead (because Alfred Kinsey corrupted data in his experiments).
      Alfred Kinsey used an inordinate amount of pedophiles, prisoners, and rapists in his study. This is admitted by his researchers. Dr. Paul Gebhard, the co-author of Sexual Behavior
      in the Human Female and second director of the Kinsey Institute. He admitted when asked about the research subjects that,”Fifty-five percent were prisoners…. We didn’t have enough non-prison people to do much of a comparison — but he
      [Kinsey] didn’t do a comparison. He simply took the prison people he got and used them as his less-than-college educated sample…. By emphasizing the less-than-college educated sample, he introduced a lot of errors into the data.

      Judith A. Reisman PhDs Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, at least 317, pre-teens were sexually experimented by older adults with 2,035 admitted child subjects by 1980. His results were inaccurate then and now Jim Kieth’s work. Even scholars today have shown that Americans aren’t as sexual promiscuity as Kinsey maintained. His goal was to make abhorrent behavior more tolerant by society, because Kinsey was a revolutionary who seek to liberalize sex as almost unlimited activity to almost
      anyone to do. Instead of a call for normal acts, he wanted little restraints by law and morality.Dr. Judith Reisman was one of the few people that challenged Kinsey’s research, because his
      research was questioned very little until decades after 1948. Reisman once worked for the FBI.
      Dr. Reisman is the President of the Institute for Media Education. She is an author, aresearcher, an expert witness on the dangers of pornography, and a scientist. Kinsey was a
      fanatical religious bigot, inflamed with hatred for Christians, Jews, and traditional morality.
      He was also a fervent racist, which put him on the same page as his friend and close associate Margaret Sanger. Together, they imposed their morality on American society. Charles E.Rice, Professor, Notre Dame Law School said that: “…Dr. Reisman’s study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey’s research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading.
      Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty….”

      “After completing her doctorate studies in mass communication in 1980, Dr. Reisman entered an investigation into Dr. Kinsey . In 1998, she published the first edition of Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, which exposed Dr. Kinsey, for the first time, as an academic fraud and a bi/homosexual responsible for massive child molestation.

      Long before the Catholic Church made the headlines for the child abuse scandals, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the so-called father of the Sexual Revolution, was quietly employing child abusers and homosexuals as researchers. In spite of the fact that Kinsey was a bi/homosexual, criminally responsible for massive child molestation, and an academic fraud, he obtained the financial backing of the notorious Rockefeller Foundation. Kinsey’s research was ultimately used to eliminate laws that banned pornography and sexual deviancy in all fifty states. In the process, he ignited the Sexual Revolution of the Sixties. Kinsey was so influential on American culture that in 1989 the National Research Council pronounced that American society could be divided into “Pre- and Post Kinsey” eras.

      Dr. Reisman’s investigation has revealed that the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University (“IU”), led by Dr. Kinsey, was responsible for the criminal sexual abuse of over 300 infants and children, the results of which were published in Kinsey’s 1948 report on male sexuality. Dr. Reisman also revealed that Kinsey’s female ‘research’ subjects would have included large numbers of prostitutes, the only women willing to candidly discuss their sex lives with him. For his “normal” male subjects, Kinsey used prison inmates, where homosexuality was rampant .”

      Nov 4, 2010 at 8:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      How nice, Max has plagiarized another website. And once again, Max raises yet another diversion, a libelous attack on Mr. Kinsey, in place of a substantive response to any of the rebuttal that has been put before him.

      There is something reprehensible about attacking the character of a dead man, something dishonest about relying on an ad hominem argument in the form of “Kinsey is a bad man therefore his data is wrong”, and something rude about the constantly shifting target of Max’s participation.

      Rather than give into Max’s dishonest tactics, it is more important, in my opinion, to focus on the inherent sinfulness of Max’s behavior here.

      After all, the sin he is engaging in, to promote his belief, indicates that his belief does not come from God, but from his own fallible, sinful heart.

      Nov 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Cass:” now you are trying to do the same thing, suggesting that criticism of the ugly beliefs and claims about people of faith is prejudice.”

      It’s unfathomable to me how you came up with that. I have made no critique of religion in this thread or any claim about people of faith. I respect people who believe and people who choose not to believe.

      You seem to be arguing to demean, demoralize and punish atheists. Why? Are they attempting to convert you?

      Nov 4, 2010 at 11:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      @Cassandra: “I think it is sad when someone who cannot, or will not, make the effort necessary to match the thought I have put forth, decides to insult my intelligence.”

      It’s all about Cassandra isn’t it? See this is because in her haste to prove me right, she’s forgotten that she is not here posting to obtain anything like learning, discovery, and is not interested in anything resembling rational inquiry. In fact were I to attempt any clarification of my principles to defeat her sad world view, I would then have to persuade her to change her sad views. This is something i’m not interested in in the slightest. I don’t prove myself to random trolls with agendas who would lead me in circles to get their kicks, as I am all too aware how these intellectually stunted folks derive a feeling of power by squandering productive efforts no matter what they may entail. This is possible because they don’t know they’re so engaged, I like to think, but I’m getting more biased in my old age, and more willing to just piss on them to get a laugh and make an example of them.So talk shit, whatever it takes, sweety, because you can’t stop stupidity in yourself, it’s eternal. Waste your own life fine, but I’ll be here judging you with no mercy for doing it, OK?

      Nov 5, 2010 at 4:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Cass:” now you are trying to do the same thing, suggesting that criticism of the ugly beliefs and claims about people of faith is prejudice.”

      “It’s unfathomable to me how you came up with that.”

      It comes from your own words.

      “But aren’t you articulating a prejudice against atheists? Aren’t you as guilty of judging non-believers as the people you so strenuously argue against? Isn’t that the tactics of a homophobe?”

      So, rather than address the issue I raise, you pull a Max and present a diversion instead.

      “I have made no critique of religion in this thread or any claim about people of faith. I respect people who believe and people who choose not to believe.”

      Nice diversionary tactic, however, I did not say you criticized religion. I said that you are arguing that criticism of ugly beliefs about people of faith – atheism – is a prejudice.

      Instead of dancing around with false accusations and personal attacks, Soupy, why not address the actual point I made:

      “You are implying, arguing, suggestion, that criticism of a prejudice is itself a prejudice. Think really carefully.

      That means that criticism of homophobia is prejudice too. It means that when you, or anyone else, criticizes homophobes like Fred Phelps, you are guilty of prejudice in return. Aren’t you, Queerty and its readers, just as as guilty of judging homophobes as the homophobes themselves are guilty of judging GLBTQ people?

      Or is there a difference between being critical of any constructed opinion about other people’s lives, and being critical of those people’s lives.

      Atheism and homophobia are criticisms of other people, both attack and dismiss the intrinsic worth of a group of people.

      Criticism of atheism is like criticism of homophobia – addressing a particular constructed negative opinion about people.

      Do you get the difference between criticizing an opinion or idea or though – like atheism or homophobia, and criticizing people based on a shared trait?

      No doubt, you or one of your peers is going to argue that religion is just a constructed opinion, idea or thought, but that is a false claim. Religion is the accumulated experiences of most of humanity, and while it includes constructed opinions about those experience, etc, it is based on experiences; just as homosexuality has both an experiential component and constructed opinions about those experiences.

      Remember, Soupy, that homophobes routinely dismiss any criticism of their own ugly beliefs and claims about GLBTQ people as prejudice, now you are trying to do the same thing, suggesting that criticism of the ugly beliefs and claims about people of faith is prejudice.

      Give this a try: explain why criticizing homophobia is not prejudice – and do so in a way that does not also apply to atheism.”

      “You seem to be arguing to demean, demoralize and punish atheists. Why? Are they attempting to convert you?”

      As opposed to the atheists here who actually are, rather then “seeming” demeaninn, demoralizing and punishing people of faith. Instead of projecting, Soupy, why not address what I actually wrote, instead of making up a straw man argument to protest?

      Nov 5, 2010 at 10:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      No doubt, you or one of your peers is going to argue that religion is just a constructed opinion, idea or thought, but that is a false claim

      You keep repeating this point or opinion to me and it has no application to anything that I have said. It’s like something that is purely computer generated.

      Intellectually rigourous you are. Somewhat inhuman and mean spirited also. Just not very pleasant.

      You may believe what you choose to, as will I. There seems no point in discussing it further.

      Nov 5, 2010 at 10:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Soupy

      “You keep repeating this point or opinion to me and it has no application to anything that I have said.”

      Of course it is relevant. You asked if my criticism of atheism is a prejudice – of course, of course you were just being insulting, but I treated it as a serious question, and I replied, demonstrating that there is a difference between criticizing people and their lives and criticizing ugly and degrading assertions about people and their lives.

      The fact that religion is experiential in nature is relevant to the point I have been making. If your dismissal were genuine, it would indicate that you do not understand religious people, but I suspect that your dismissal is not genuine, but simply an excuse for bad behavior.

      “It’s like something that is purely computer generated.”

      How dehumanizing of you.

      “Intellectually rigourous you are. Somewhat inhuman and mean spirited also. Just not very pleasant.”

      So says someone who relies on insults in place of reason, logic, facts or even genuine discussion.

      “You may believe what you choose to, as will I. There seems no point in discussing it further.”

      Then I trust you will stop posting derogatory things about me or people of faith.

      Adman

      “It’s all about Cassandra isn’t it?”

      Yes, adman, your posts have been all about me, rather than about my position, the material I presented, or the issues involved.

      “See this is because in her haste to prove me right, she’s forgotten that she is not here posting to obtain anything like learning, discovery, and is not interested in anything resembling rational inquiry.”

      Another personal attack that only serves to affirm that atheism is a prejudice. Like any homophobe, Adman, you pretend to know the truth about my life and your pretense is ugly and degrading.

      “In fact were I to attempt any clarification of my principles to defeat her sad world view, I would then have to persuade her to change her sad views. This is something i’m not interested in in the slightest.”

      So, you admit that your purpose in posting is not to convince or persuade, but to revile and malign. How exactly does that refute my assertion that atheism is only a prejudice?

      “I don’t prove myself to random trolls with agendas who would lead me in circles to get their kicks,”

      Here we have a display of ego, adman, your opinion of yourself is so extreme, that even when you lie about other people and malign them, you don’t have to substantiate any thing you say, or explain it, or defend it. And since you’ve admitted, essentially, that you are only here for the sadism of maligning people, rather than to convince or persuade – ‘get their kicks’ is clearly a case of projection on your part.

      “as I am all too aware how these intellectually stunted folks”
      Again, Adman, insulting my intelligence when you fail, over and over again, to even attempt to refute or disprove what I have presented, makes you look bad. And your continued use of insults affirms that atheism is simply a degrading and abusive prejudice, such that those who endorse it lose the ability to be civil, moral, or ethical.

      “to just piss on them to get a laugh and make an example of them.”

      Another example of the moral bankruptcy of atheism.

      “So talk shit, whatever it takes, sweety, because you can’t stop stupidity in yourself, it’s eternal. Waste your own life fine, but I’ll be here judging you with no mercy for doing it, OK?”

      Since you have demonstrated a distinct lack of ethics and morality, your judgment of me is worthless. Your derogatory opinion of me is of the same value as that articulated by any other bigot. I don’t change to suit homophobes, I’m not changing to suit you, my feelings are not hurt by homophobes, nor are they hurt by you.

      The more insults you post at me, Adman, the more you demonstrate to others that my premise “atheism is just a degrading prejudice” is correct, because you show them by direct example that atheism is just a way of exalting your own ego by insulting and denigrating others.

      Nov 5, 2010 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DaleVM
      DaleVM

      @ No. 41 · Cassandra
      I’m a Wotanist. I don’t believe in semitic fairy tales. However, homosexuality is opposed to nature to reproduce you own kind and violates commands of religion by refusal to mate with the opposite gender. Cassandra, you and Lady CaCa suffer from delusions and Stockholm syndrome. You just follow the lemmings into the sea without questioning if it is the right thing to do, don’t you?

      Nov 6, 2010 at 10:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Dalevm

      “I’m a Wotanist. I don’t believe in semitic fairy tales.”

      Though you dismiss Christianity as a fairy tale, I will not be equally rude to you. However, the following is interesting:

      “Wotanism is the name of a racial religion promulgated by David Lane. . . . Wotanism has been described as the “most violent strain” of Odinism in prisons, and its materials have been prohibited as a result.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wotanism

      “David Eden Lane (November 2, 1938 – May 28, 2007) was an American white nationalist leader and convicted felon. A founding member of The Order, he died while serving a 190-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana.[1]

      Lane stated his views can be best summarized by the 14 words, a term he coined: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.” He held that view “because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.”[17]

      Lane believed white people needed their own ethnostate to survive and stated, “Today, in the year 2005, approximately two percent of earth’s population is White female of child bearing age or younger… The remaining whites are hopelessly integrated, terrorized, brain washed, miscegenated and are rapidly being overrun by six billion coloreds.”[18]

      He believed that Christianity is problematic to white people because its philosophies are anti-nature and Jewish in origin. He preferred a nature-based European Paganism as the original religion of whites. Similarly he believed that completely white nations are necessary to eliminate miscegenation. He considered white people who supported what he characterized as the “Zionist conspiracy” to be “race traitors.”[19]

      Lane authored the 88 Precepts, a collection of statements on natural law, which combine in white nationalist shorthand to “14-88″ or “14/88″. [20]
      [edit] Wotanism

      Lane was a major proponent of Wotanism, inspired by an 1936 essay by Carl Jung titled “Wotan”. Lane had expressed derision for the Odinist religion, whose adherents rejected what they perceived as his attempt to appropriate their religion for political and racist ends. Lane explained his motivations:
      “So, I first chose the name Wotanism over Odinism. First because W.O.T.A.N. makes a perfect acronym for the Will Of The Aryan Nation. Secondly because he was called Wotan on the European continent and only called Odin in Scandinavia. Therefore Wotan appeals to the genetic memory of more of our ancestors. And finally because a split had to be made with the game players, deceivers and universalists who had usurped the name Odin.[21] ”

      Lane contributed a one-page introduction to a book by Ron McVan called Creed of Iron: Wotansvolk Wisdom which the Odinic Rite claims was heavily plagiarized from The Book of Blotar.[citation needed]

      Wotansvolk and 14 Word Publications are now defunct and no longer have mailing addresses or websites. The Temple of Wotan still exists, but the organization was no longer run by Lane or his associates and has distanced itself from racist and neo-Nazi ideologies.[22] Based on letters written from prison to his supporters, Lane appeared to remain committed to spreading his message through Wotanism, and it is unclear what his final relationship was with The Temple of Wotan.

      In 2004, Lane authored a short story entitled KD Rebel, which is set in the near future and tells the story of a Wotanist colony who have established tenuous control over portions of Western Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming,which they call Kinsland. The story mostly focuses on the Kinslanders’ practice of kidnapping miscegenating or “wayward” young girls and women from urban areas, in order to indoctrinate them into Wotanism and so the Kinslanders can practice polygamy and have large numbers of children. Lane advocated the inclusion of polygamy as part of Wotanism.[23]”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lane_%28white_nationalist%29

      Now, none of the above proves, or disproves, anything about Wotanism or the credibility of the spiritual experiences of its followers. However, your reference to Christianity as “Semitic fairytales, coupled with what I’ve found about Wotanism, indicates that you are probably arguing from a position of bigotry and prejudice, rather than from reason, respect for others, rational analysis, or recognizable ethical system.

      Perhaps you are participating solely because my criticism of prejudice applies to your beliefs as it does to homophobes and atheists.

      “However, homosexuality is opposed to nature”

      No, homosexuality occurs in nature. However, computers do not, neither does written language, and a very strong case can be made that modern human technology is in at least accidental, if not deliberate opposition to nature, which means that by posting, you opposed nature, and your own criticism applies to you.

      “to reproduce you own kind”

      It is not necessary for all human to reproduce, nor it is necessary for all individuals of most species to reproduce. In fact, in a majority of highly social species, like humans, reproductive success over all relies on non-reproductive members helping to rear the offspring of a select few sexually reproductive individuals. For example, wolves. Odin was said to have a pair of wolves as companions. Homosexuality has been recorded among wolves.

      “and violates commands of religion”

      Perhaps you believe that as a wotanist you are naturally more informed about Christianity than Christians are, but, despite the claims of fundamentalists, the Christian Bible does not actually condemn homosexuality, nor does it order people to reproduce. In fact, Paul writes that it is better not to marry at all, ever.

      “Cassandra, you and Lady CaCa suffer from delusions and Stockholm syndrome.”

      Your insult indicates that you have no real argument to present, only verbal abuse. Is this a reflection of your religion, or of your personal character?

      “You just follow the lemmings into the sea without questioning if it is the right thing to do, don’t you?”

      That is an interesting fantasy, but I’ve spent decades refuting anti-gay theology, so your fantasy can be based on only one thing – your own self. Certainly, your remarks about homosexuality being unnatural is a case of following the homophobic lemmings.

      Nov 6, 2010 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAM
      JAM

      Are you all blind. I guess since Sodom was destroyed, God has changed his mind and now smiles down on this smooth talking wizard – a “religious” deceiving Sodomite.
      Have all you peopletotally lost your minds or did you never have one single ounce of spiritual sense.
      You have turned the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ into lasciviousness. Jude told us that you reprobates would arrive on the scene. Peter told us that perilous times would come and that men would be lovers of their own selves. This church, this pastor, and all of you satan-blinded lemmings know nothing of the Gospel.
      YOu are totally intolerant of those who believe in holiness. and we are extremely offended at your trumped up term “homophobic”. C’mon, who is afraid of a homo?

      The point is that some people still believe the Bible
      Some people still believe that repentance is part of the Gospel.
      Some people still believe that you can be forgiven for moral failure,
      however, to stand up and to proclaim that perversion is moral – that God made you
      a pervert and that Jesus condones and blesses your perverted sexual practices,
      there is no more sin to be saved from and there is no more need for the Gospel.

      Laodicean lukewarm – loser! Smooth talking liar – deceiving the innocent,
      using Jesus Christ to justify perversion – that is apostate – you have crossed the line
      and made yourself hopeless – and have snatched hope out of the hearts and minds of those who are considering being delivered by Jesus Christ.

      Nov 9, 2010 at 10:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Jam

      “Are you all blind.”

      How exactly does ‘love your neighbor as yourself” give you license to insult people like this?

      “I guess since Sodom was destroyed,”

      The sin of Sodom, according to Ezekiel and Jesus, was not sexual sin, but oppressing the poor and vulnerable. The true heirs of Sodom today are anyone who oppresses other people, including homophobes.

      “God has changed his mind and now smiles down on this smooth talking wizard – a “religious” deceiving Sodomite.”

      You are engaged in the sin of reviling, and according to Paul, you will not inherit the kingdom of heaven as long as you remain a reviler.

      “Have all you peopletotally lost your minds or did you never have one single ounce of spiritual sense.”

      Lovely insult, essentially calling people fools, yet Jesus had something to say about that:’
      Matthew 5
      21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

      “You have turned the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ into lasciviousness.”

      Are you familiar with the ten commandments? Not only do they not contain any prohibition of homosexuality, they do contain a prohibition against bearing false witness, which you have just done.

      One a more important note, you are simply posting derogatory and abusive assertions about people’s character and spirituality, rather than providing even a hint of analysis and research, essentially, your entire purpose in posting to offend against people with insults and abuse.

      That is sin, Jam, against the participants in this discussion, against Pastor Swilley, and against God.

      “Jude told us that you reprobates would arrive on the scene.”

      Really? You didn’t cite chapter and verse, so I’m inclined to believe you are trying to deceive people. Your characterization of our lives as immoral is sin on you part, because you are not to judge others, that usurps God’s role.

      “Peter told us that perilous times would come and that men would be lovers of their own selves. This church, this pastor, and all of you satan-blinded lemmings know nothing of the Gospel.”

      Actually, your second sentence appears to be case of you being a lover of your own self. You vilify Pastor Swilley because his experience is different from your own, and you revile and vilify, bear false witness about, sin against millions of people to exalt your ego and to worship your sexuality.

      “YOu are totally intolerant of those who believe in holiness.”

      Bearing false witness is sin, Jam. There are some atheists here, but not all GLBTQ people are atheists, most are people of faith.

      You though are intolerant of people who believe in holiness that is different from what you recognize as holy – the holiness of their relationships, the holiness of their God created sexual orientation, the holiness of justice – all of these things you are intolerant of, according to your own post.

      “and we are extremely offended at your trumped up term “homophobic”. C’mon, who is afraid of a homo?”

      You are offended by accurate rebuke of your sin.

      Proverbs 1:29-31 (New International Version)

      29 since they hated knowledge
      and did not choose to fear the LORD.
      30 Since they would not accept my advice
      and spurned my rebuke,
      31 they will eat the fruit of their ways
      and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.

      “The point is that some people still believe the Bible”

      Just not homophobes.

      “Some people still believe that repentance is part of the Gospel.”

      Just not homophobes, who sin against GLBTQ people daily. Just not homophobes, who condemnation of our lives only produces evil fruit, and as Jesus said, evil fruit is proof of an evil tree.

      “Some people still believe that you can be forgiven for moral failure,”

      Though homophobes insist that their moral failure of inciting injustice, of bearing false witness, of persecuting others, of treating others as inferior to themselves, is actually good.

      “however, to stand up and to proclaim that perversion is moral – that God made you a pervert and that Jesus condones and blesses your perverted sexual practices,”

      Since homosexuality is not a perversion, but your condemnation of our lives is, why are you addressing to us a criticism that applies to your behavior here?

      “Laodicean lukewarm – loser! Smooth talking liar – deceiving the innocent,
      using Jesus Christ to justify perversion – that is apostate – you have crossed the line
      and made yourself hopeless – and have snatched hope out of the hearts and minds of those who are considering being delivered by Jesus Christ.”

      The sad thing is that your insults actually fit your behavior more than that of any homosexual or pro-gay theologian. Anti-gay theology drives millions of people away from God.

      Please repent of your sins against all GLBTQ people, including myself and my partner.

      Nov 10, 2010 at 12:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • noway
      noway

      what i hear is a lot of jesting, joking a frivolity. yet sin is sin. This man makes light of scripture to find acceptance for his abominable lifestyle choice. it is a choice, i don’t care what he says..God loves me…yes…but God loves me enough to change me. this is just another example of the end times…come quickly Lord Jesus!

      Nov 11, 2010 at 12:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      NOWAY

      “what i hear is a lot of jesting, joking a frivolity.”
      So you weren’t paying attention.

      “yet sin is sin.”

      Yet homosexuality is not sin, it does not fit the test for sin – a violation of justice. However, discrimination is sin, it does fit the test for sin.

      “This man makes light of scripture to find acceptance for his abominable lifestyle choice.”

      Your words above are sin, they make you a reviler, whom Paul says will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, when you claim it is, you lie, and therefore sin.

      “it is a choice,”

      Not according to homosexuals.

      “i don’t care what he says”

      So you put your ego and self above others, in direct contradiction and disobedience to Christ. Since you do not care what GLBTQ people state about their own lives, why should anyone care what you say about anything?

      “God loves me…yes…but God loves me enough to change me.”

      Yes, God has redeemed millions of people from bigotry and prejudice. But so far, God has not changed anyone from homosexual to heterosexual.

      “this is just another example of the end times…”
      Homosexuality is certainly not an example of the end times, it has existed for as long as humans have left records about their sexuality. Your prejudice is not an example of the end times either, people have been abusive and degrading to others for as long as they have been leaving records.

      “come quickly Lord Jesus!”
      Some of us already experience Jesus, and He tells us that our sexual orientation is not intrinsically sin.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 2:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      can you post a link to the source video?
      I want to send this to my christian friends, but I really don’t want them to read all of queerty in the process.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PattiL007
      PattiL007

      @Carl: Church in the now is just off I-20 in Conyers GA.
      Directions:
      * Take 1-20 East Outside of the perimeter to Conyers
      * Take Exit 84 (Salem Road) turn right
      * Go to Flat Shoals (next light), turn right
      * Go to Iris Drive (1st light), turn right
      * Follow this access road to the church
      The church is on the left…but you couldn’t miss it if you tried…lol. Please come visit us…you’ll be welcomed and accepted with the open arms of LOVE!

      Nov 13, 2010 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PattiL007
      PattiL007

      @Jackson: I completely agree…the bogus religion of Christianity must die…GOD IS LOVE and the only way to follow Him is to BE LOVE…

      Nov 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PattiL007
      PattiL007

      @Jackson: I completely agree…the bogus religion of Christianity must die…GOD IS LOVE and the only way to follow Him is to BE LOVE… @Daez: Thank you…you can make donations through the website at churchinthenowdotorg

      As for the reactions since the video…it seems that others feel as you do and have also donated…from the bottom of my heart I thank you and invite all to come.

      Peace my friends…

      Nov 13, 2010 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PattiL007
      PattiL007

      @Alex: The source of the video is available through churchinthenowDOTorg Click on streaming video then to archives. You will see the video there “Real Message to Real People”

      Peace…

      Nov 13, 2010 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      PattiL007

      You spammed the following self-contradicting message:
      “I completely agree…the bogus religion of Christianity must die…GOD IS LOVE and the only way to follow Him is to BE LOVE…”

      Christianity teaches that God is love, your declaration that the belief of millions of people that God is Love must die is an example of hate, so you are not following God.

      Jackson’s characterization of Christianity is false, Patti, his characterization was hateful and malicious, and it mirrored the way homophobes characterize homosexuality as a culture of death, and call it a “deathstyle”.

      Your remarks demonstrate a significant lack of love on your part.

      Nov 14, 2010 at 2:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • k
      k

      Anyone else watch the video and realize the writer who posted it hasn’t watched it? Because he states in the video he has to step down as Bishop but will continue to preach. He also says not to
      “wait for the other shoe to drop, there’s no scandal”.

      Nov 14, 2010 at 10:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxVeritas
      MaxVeritas

      @PattiL007 RE: Church in the now

      2 Corinthians 11:12-15: “But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.”

      Matthew 7:22-23
      Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’

      And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

      Luke 3:17
      His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

      1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

      Romans 1:26-28
      26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

      28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done

      May God open the minds,hearts & spirits of those who are following a false teacher. Amen…

      Nov 14, 2010 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Dumas
      Michael Dumas

      @Todd Army: Yes, because you are an expert on what most of us believe. Thanks.

      Nov 14, 2010 at 4:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Dumas
      Michael Dumas

      @jason: Wow, you really don’t understand sexual orientation or sexual identity. But yet feel qualified to give your 1.5 cents…Amazing.

      Nov 14, 2010 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Annais
      Annais

      “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.” (Leviticus 18:22-23, NKJV throughout)
      “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. ” (Leviticus 20:13)

      The New Testament states what happens to those who refuse to acknowledge God:

      “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, . . .

      “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

      “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; ” (Romans 1:24, 26-28)

      Nov 14, 2010 at 10:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      MaxVeritas

      What a dishonest name, by the way.

      “Matthew 7:22-23
      Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’

      And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'”

      It is a shame you ripped this out of its context, but I understand why you had to.

      Matthew 7 starts with the following:

      1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

      3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

      6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

      You, of course, judge GLBTQ people, and obsess about what you perceived to be a mote in our lives, while ignoring the log of pride and hate in your own.

      Further on in chapter seven, the following:
      15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
      True and False Disciples
      21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

      Note then what the evidence of a false disciple is – evil fruit. Guess what Max, your condemnation of homosexuals only bears evil fruit, it causes you to sin, it encourages other to sin. The passage you quoted is not a warning to homosexuals, but to people like you.

      The prejudice you teach is lawlessness, because God’s law is an expression of perfect justice, and you are spreading perfectly vicious injustice.

      “Romans 1:26-28
      26 For this reason”

      The phrase above tells us that the prior passages are crucial to understanding what follows, yet you skip those passages to deceive us. That is lawlessness on your part.

      What did you skip over? Why, passages that indicate that Paul is not writing about homosexuality at all:

      “18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

      24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

      26 Because of this,”

      Paul is writing about idolatry, Max. People having sex as an act of worship of false gods. Which, ironically, is what you are promoting to homosexuals – trying to get us to have heterosexual sex to worship your vision of God.

      ” women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;. . . men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,”

      Homosexuality occurs in nature, and for homosexuals it is natural. Paul is writing about heterosexuals engaging in cultic fertility practices, having sex with priests and priestess of the goddess Cybele and her consort Attis.

      However, and this is very important for you to understand because you have much to repent of – for homosexuals, sex with someone of the opposite gender is contrary to nature and unnatural, but that is what you are trying to browbeat GLBTQ people into doing.

      Paul is talking to you, Max, and your peers, which is why you and your peers fixate on this passage and at the same time, skip the part that points out your sin.

      “May God open the minds,hearts & spirits of those who are following a false teacher. Amen…”

      May your prayer come true in your life Max, and may you stop bearing evil fruit like injustice, lies, libel and reviling, hate and prejudice.

      Annais

      You essentially made a death threat against millions of human beings, and so, your moral authority is non-existent. You’ve committed fraud in your abuse of the texts you quoted, and sadly, you bound yourself to all of the laws in Leviticus, while rejecting the Christ.

      Please repent. Your anti-gay theology is something that only bears evil fruit, and according to Jesus, it therefore does not come from God. As a reviler, you will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, according to Paul, so repent and quit your reviling of millions of humans beings.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 12:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Annais
      Annais

      @Cassandra: Cassandra, that is not my word. That is God’s word. You have to remember that Jesus Christ did not come to change the law but came to fufill it. I love Jesus Christ and am thankful for the ultimate sacrifice he did for my salvation. Jesus loves everyone one. He just does not love sin. Do not be blind and fooled Cassandra. Since when can you serve two God’s? BTW God made Adam and Eve not ADAM AND STEVE…Since you are soo open minded about this homosexuality thing and religion than i guess it would be okay for you to have sexual intercourses with a cow or maybe a horse dont you think? God made all of us. He is the creator of all things. Do you think that God is a God that changes his mind? It seems like you did not get the memo. But here it is JESUS CHRIST IS THE SAME GOD OF LEVITICUS, ABRAM, ISAAC, JACOB, MOSES!!!!!!!!! He does not CHANGE! You talk about Jesus Christ like he is another God, He is not another God but God himself in FLESH!!!

      Nov 15, 2010 at 10:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Annais
      Annais

      1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
      This is in the NEW TESTAMENT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!! Notice the Lord did NOT say THE HUSBAND OF ONE HUSBAND!!!! I LOVE MY GOD!!! THANK YOU YASHUA!

      Nov 15, 2010 at 10:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “Cassandra, that is not my word.”
      No, it was your word – your interpretation of a handful of texts raped out of their context to justify injustice.

      “That is God’s word.”

      No, you provided english translations of texts written in Hebrew, and faulty translations at that, which you interpret as demanding the death of millions of people.

      “You have to remember that Jesus Christ did not come to change the law but came to fufill it.”

      Which means that your reference to Levitical law is pointless malice. Bear in mind, Christ defined the Law, and the condemnation of homosexuality fails Christ’s definition, your theology of hate is sin and lawlessness, Annais.

      “I love Jesus Christ and am thankful for the ultimate sacrifice he did for my salvation.”

      And yet, you spread persecution and malice, and teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ which only bears evil fruit. If you truly loved Jesus, Annais, you could not even bear the thought of executing GLBTQ people. If you truly loved Jesus, Annais, you’d realize that you are commanded to treat GLBTQ exactly the way you wish to be treated, and do your best to do so.

      Instead, you say we should be murdered.

      “He just does not love sin.”
      Homosexuality is not a sin, but promoting injustice is, Annais, and that is what you are doing. What you teach destroys people, it only bears evil fruit, and that means that your belief that homosexuality is a sin, does not come from God.

      “Do not be blind and fooled Cassandra.”
      Not believing your malicious claims does not equate to being either blind or fooled. And you should be very careful with your use of that word:

      Matthew 5:22
      But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

      “Since when can you serve two God’s?”

      Making false accusations is a sin, Annais, please repent. After all, you are asking me to serve you instead of God.

      “BTW God made Adam and Eve not ADAM AND STEVE…”
      God many the entire universe, Annais, including men named Adam and men named Steve, and men named Frank, Tony, Mark, Julio, and women named Stevie and Karen and Lawanda, and billions more.

      “Since you are soo open minded about this homosexuality thing and religion than i guess it would be okay for you to have sexual intercourses with a cow or maybe a horse dont you think? ”

      You have just equated the loving relationships of millions of human beings to raping animals, proving that you not only do not love Jesus, you don’t really know Him. Your vicious speculation is a horrific sin against me, and millions of other people.

      Repent, Annais. Only monsters use the gay=bestiality comparison.

      “God made all of us. He is the creator of all things.”
      Including GLBTQ people.

      “Do you think that God is a God that changes his mind?”
      God never condemned homosexuality, but always condemns injustice, and you are trying to claim that God orders injustice. Shouldn’t you address your question to yourself?

      “It seems like you did not get the memo.”
      Please stop sinning against me.

      “But here it is JESUS CHRIST IS THE SAME GOD OF LEVITICUS, ABRAM, ISAAC, JACOB, MOSES!!!!!!!!! He does not CHANGE! You talk about Jesus Christ like he is another God, He is not another God but God himself in FLESH!!!”

      But Annais, you are not God, and your interpretation of the passages from Leviticus (not named after a person named Leviticus, by the way) is simply your vicious and unjust, destructive and abusive, murderous guesses. You are not God, you are fallible person looking for a reason to hate other people so you can feel better about your self.

      Your last post is a case of the fallacy of argument by absence. You are arguing that because same-sex marriages are not explicitly endorsed in the Bible, they are sin. However, computers are not mentioned in the Bible, nor is the internet, or automobiles, or telephones or electric generators, and millions of other things no one considers sin. Yet for you, because you use this standard to judge us – everything that is not listed in the Bible is now sin.

      You have everything to repent of, Annais, so please, get started. I await the opportunity to forgive you for your sins against me personally.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 11:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Annais
      Annais

      Cassandra if you have not noticed i have not JUDGED anyone. Read what i have typed and see if i have NOT told someone go repent!I have not told anyone “You bear eveil fruits”. It seems like you need to read what you have typed and see who is judging who here. I have just typed what is in the word of God. Now if you think that the The old testament is not God’s word, than maybe you should not use the 10 commandments. You can go ahead and kill, lie and steal. But you do use them. Maybe Jesus should have erased that from the bible. The bible is called the word of God, not the word of LEVITICUS OR MOSES ECT. It is the word of God!!!! You are not God to forgive me for anything CASSANDRA. Let me let you know that the only ones that have been persecuted for believing what they believe where the JEWS and christianity once apon a time as well. Who did Jesus Christ send thru all the nations to preach the good news? 12 JEWS!!! So if you want to get technical go find a messianic jew and maybe you will find out the truth! Your Jesus Christ and my Jesus Christ is JEW!!

      You have just equated the loving relationships of millions of human beings to raping animals, proving that you not only do not love Jesus, you don’t really know Him. Your vicious speculation is a horrific sin against me, and millions of other people

      Get to know the word the real way. Do you even know what Gods’s name is? Do you know what kind of language was used before hebrew? Do you even know who you really serve? Do you even know that Jesus Christ is really called Yashua? Your name is not spelled or said different in any other language is it. Your name is Cassandra in every language. Go research the word of God. Go on the internet and go from the very beginning to the end. In the beggining God created what? Well start the story from there, dont discard half of the bible and only use texts from it that excuses your behavior so you can sleep better at night. With that being said, Cassandra, i love you as my sister in the lord and i love all of those who practice homosexuality. I just do not love their practice. I love them because they are human beings and The Lord died for them and for me. But the truth of the matter is that the Lord is agains the practice homosexuality.

      Nov 16, 2010 at 9:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “Cassandra if you have not noticed i have not JUDGED anyone.”
      Please do not lie.

      When you posted from Leviticus 20:13 as applicable to GLBTQ people, you judged us. When you wrote: “Do not be blind and fooled Cassandra.” you judged me. Your assertion “what happens to those who refuse to acknowledge God” is this context is a judgement, and when you tried to apply Romans 1 to our lives, you judged us.

      You are trying to deceive people.

      “I have not told anyone “You bear eveil fruits”. ”

      You are ducking the point I made, Annais. The belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is something that only bears evil fruit, it only harms people. According to Jesus, the evil fruit, the destructive consequences of ‘homosexuality is sin’ is proof that the condemnation of homosexuality does not come from God.

      Your protestations do not change that.

      “It seems like you need to read what you have typed and see who is judging who here.”

      No, I am well aware of what I have presented, you though, are lying about your own posts.
      Proverbs 12:5
      The thoughts of the righteous are just,But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.

      You have promoted injustice, asserting that GLBTQ people are to be put to death. Then you lied about your own posts.

      “I have just typed what is in the word of God.”
      No, you have not. You have typed a few passages out of the Bible, and then insisted that they apply to GLBTQ people, you’ve not just typed, you’ve interpreted and judged.

      “Now if you think that the The old testament is not God’s word, than maybe you should not use the 10 commandments.”

      Now you are putting words in my posts that are not there, which is more sin on your part. Please repent.

      (skipping the less rational part)

      “It is the word of God!!!!”
      But your interpretation is the issue here, and you are not God.

      “You are not God to forgive me for anything CASSANDRA.”
      Someone doesn’t know Christian theology very well, Annais, for we are all called to forgive those who have sinned against us. Remember the Lord’s Prayer: “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us”. You’ve trespassed against GLBTQ people, Annais. Please repent so we can forgive you.

      “Let me let you know that the only ones that have been persecuted for believing what they believe where the JEWS and christianity once apon a time as well.”

      No. That is simply not true. Millions of people have been persecuted for their beliefs, including Native Americans, the indigenous peoples of Central America, many sects of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, women for many reasons all over the world, to name only a few.

      Your defense of your sin of injustice requires to you engage in more sin in the form of deception and false testimony.

      (Skipping the off-topic bit)

      I wrote to you: “You have just equated the loving relationships of millions of human beings to raping animals, proving that you not only do not love Jesus, you don’t really know Him. Your vicious speculation is a horrific sin against me, and millions of other people”

      And you replied:

      “Get to know the word the real way.”
      Way to avoid the subject and reveal your guilty conscience, Annais. And maligning my scriptural education, when you have not refuted any point I made so far, is sin on your part.

      “Go research the word of God.”
      Annais, I’ve been researching the word of God for close to 50 years now. Your scolding harangue doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong, and it does not make your sin against GLBTQ people go away.

      “Well start the story from there”

      The Beginning, when God created everything, including the very life on this earth, in which homosexuality is but one of many forms of natural sexuality. The beginning with its two accounts of the creation of human beings. Or how about Paul, stating that the nature of God is manifested in the creation, a creation in which thousands of species have homosexual individuals.

      “dont discard half of the bible and only use texts from it that excuses your behavior so you can sleep better at night.”

      Isn’t that advice you should live before you wield it as a false accusation against me? You who posted a few cherry-picked Bible verses to judge, condemn and sentence to death millions of human beings?

      “With that being said, Cassandra, i love you as my sister in the lord and i love all of those who practice homosexuality.”

      No, you don’t. You condemn us to death, revile our lives and relationships, insult me repeatedly rather than address my rebuttal of your false claims. You want to pretend that you love us, thinking that will fool us and God, but you made a death threat against us, and that is not love, Annais.

      It is hate.

      “I just do not love their practice.”
      You hate our capacity for love, our expression of love, and hate us enough to reduce our love to the cold and sterile word “practice” – mere acts, rather than lives.

      “I love them because they are human beings and The Lord died for them and for me.”
      No, you made a death threat. That is not love, that is hate.

      “But the truth of the matter is that the Lord is agains the practice homosexuality.”

      No, that is what you are against, but you are not the Lord, not my lord, not anyone’s lord. You are trying to be God, trying to judge and sentence to death millions of human beings, and in doing so, you are sinning not only against GLBTQ people, but against God.

      Please repent, Annais.

      Nov 16, 2010 at 9:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Annais
      Annais

      Cassandra, forgive me if i have offended you or anyone. I do not judge people. That is not my place here in this world. My place in this earth is to preach the good news of Christ and separate the good from the evil.

      The Beginning, when God created everything, including the very life on this earth, in which homosexuality is but one of many forms of natural sexuality.

      LOL really, that is natural? That is not what the scriptures say my friend!!!

      Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, arsenokoit?s, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

      The meaning of arsenokoit?s:
      (KJV), “sodomites” (YLT), or “men who practice homosexuality.

      That is in the new testament. I know that you will try some way to justify that part of the bible and make it seem like God changed his mind about the homexual acts. God did not create homosexuality. The devil did.
      God Bless You :-)

      Nov 16, 2010 at 11:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PattiL007
      PattiL007

      @Max
      Thank you for your thoughts and prayers!

      @Cassandra
      If I have offended you, I apologize…and if you feel as if I have not shown love then I am truly sorry and will have to take that up in prayer. I believe that showing and being Love is my only job and if I am not performing it satisfactorily then I will have to make changes. Thank you for your concern.

      To Everyone: Blessings of Peace, Brothers and Sisters!

      Nov 17, 2010 at 2:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “Cassandra, forgive me if i have offended you or anyone. I do not judge people. That is not my place here in this world. My place in this earth is to preach the good news of Christ and separate the good from the evil.”

      “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, arsenokoit?s, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

      The meaning of arsenokoit?s:
      (KJV), “sodomites” (YLT), or “men who practice homosexuality.”

      So, your “I’m sorry” was insincere, just another trick, more deception and deceit and sin. You are lying, Annais, when you claim not to judge people – over and over again you have judged, condemned and sentenced to death gay and lesbian people, and then blamed your sin on God. Nor are you preaching the Good News of Christ – for Christ never condemned homosexuality, and his commandment ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ absolutely forbids the prejudice and malice you have spewed up onto the lives of GLBTQ people. Simply put, you are not treating us as yourself, you are treating us as objects of abuse to be reviled and lied to so that you may feel good about yourself.

      Annais, arsenokoite is a word Paul made up, no one knows for sure what he meant by it, for he never explained in writing, but, subsequent authors used it to reference something a husband did to his wife. Philologists (people who studies how words come to be) who have opined about the word and concluded that he was probably talking about some kind of wrongdoing that included both sexual and economic injustice, possibly the trade in sex slaves.

      There were two greek words available to Paul to use, that did mean men who have sex with men, but Paul did not use either one in any of his letters.

      Remember, Annais, that sin, by definition, involves some element of injustice, that’s the message in ‘love your neighbor as yourself’, which commands us to treat every one as our equal, perfectly. Anything less than that is injustice – including your condemnation of homosexuality. Your belief is a sin, our sexuality is not.

      The next problem with your quote is that you are again making an evil and utterly vicious comparison about GLBTQ people – now equating our loving relationships with adultery, theft, libel. That makes you a reviler, which means that you, Annais, will not inherit the kingdom of the Heaven. That is the amazing irony of this passage – when you use it to condemn homosexuals, you become a reviler and condemn yourself.

      And no, it is not your place to separate the good from the evil, that is Christ’s place, and you have put yourself in Christ’s role. That is a terrible sin of pride – you know, the sin that is supposed to have caused Lucifer to fall.

      “That is in the new testament.”

      That it is. So is Christ’s command that you break in every post: “love your neighbor as yourself”. Every time you revile GLBTQ people, every time you say we should be put to death, or compare our relationships to adultery, you disobey Jesus, you sin.

      And that should mean something to you, for how can your belief that homosexuality is sin be righteous, when you have to sin in order to express it, when every time you defend it, you sin, when all of its consequences are evil and abusive. Yet you don’t seem to care about doing what is good, only in exalting your ego by tearing down GLBTQ people.

      “I know that you will try some way to justify that part of the bible and make it seem like God changed his mind about the homexual acts.”

      You seem to know all kinds of things that are not true, and all of them are ugly. God didn’t change His mind about homosexuality, God never condemned it. Fallible, sinful, ego-driven humans like you chose to condemn it and blame that sin of injustice and hate on God.

      “God did not create homosexuality.”
      The Bible tells us that God created all things.

      “The devil did.”
      That is not a bible-based belief.

      “God Bless You :-)”

      Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God’s name in vain.

      Please make a sincere repentance and refrain from further sin, Annais.

      Further, Annais, the way you keep moving from one unsupported and dishonest point to another, never even attempting to defend those that I have already refuted, demonstrates contempt on your part – you don’t care enough about the truth to even respond to the criticisms I have presented, but simply march on to you next degraded and malignant talking point.

      Please stop running away, face the fact that what you teach destroys other people, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. The evil fruit that is the only product of ‘homosexuality is sin’ is proof that ‘homosexuality is sin’ does not come from God. You cannot embrace Jesus, who taught ‘good trees bear good fruit, evil trees bear evil fruit’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ and embrace ‘homosexuality is sin’. The two are fundamentally, spiritually, ethically, morally in opposition. You can either follow Jesus, or you can condemn homosexuals.

      Make up your mind please.

      Nov 17, 2010 at 2:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @PattiL007: Shut it. You are a twisted wanker dropping out of life with your delusional nonsense that props your ego up with fantasy. Open stupidity and ignorance dancing around like kindness is arrogant and disgusting. You are a disgrace and an idiot.

      Nov 17, 2010 at 3:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @PattiL007: And you are an evil clown as well.

      Nov 17, 2010 at 3:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kari
      kari

      This makes me angry. He married a woman he wasn’t attracted to? Was he dating men all this time? Why did he get married if it wasn’t to lie to his parishioners?

      I think homosexuality is fine & I’m 100% in favor of gay rights. I have big problems with christians teaching things they don’t really believe. I’m glad Pastor Swilley is speaking his truth now, but I am angry that he supported a bible he didn’t believe in for 30 yrs.

      I grew up in a very strict christian family. I’m not a believer anymore. I think enormous amts of damage are done by people who support Christian traditions when they don’t actually believe in them.

      Jeez.

      Dec 4, 2010 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RodneysSister
      RodneysSister

      @Jackson: It takes alot of courage to tell the truth about yourself. I commend this man for telling the truth.

      Dec 10, 2010 at 2:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kim
      kim

      @tallskin2: GET SAVED AND DELIVERED FROM DEMONDS JIM SWILLEY

      May 31, 2011 at 8:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adan
      Adan

      Brave of him to cum out, and good for him as I have to say, he is well hot MMMM.

      Mar 5, 2012 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.