Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
holy lands

The Christians Hate Gays In Jamaica. So What Are Gay Jamaicans Doing Praying to Jesus?

jesusjamaica

Jamaica may be the scene of violent anti-gay murders. It may be where state officials refuse to acknowledge a culture of homophobia. And it may be a place gay American activists have boycotted out of contempt. But none of that removes the gay men and women who call Jamaica home. And even though much of the country’s homophobia is rooted in Christianity, some of them are looking to Jesus for salvation all the time..

“Churches in a box” — crates, folding tables, and chairs — are sprouting up around the country to give gay Jamaicans a place to pray in a safe space, relays Global Post. Indeed, these sermons tell parishioners they aren’t sinners, but god’s children.

The Sunshine Cathedral fills quickly. Even though the service isn’t scheduled to begin until 1 p.m., the room begins filling an hour earlier. These services serve as social gatherings as much as they are religious events, and by the time Griffin steps up to the podium — dressed in black pants, a black shirt with a white clerical collar, and a bright multicolored stole — the space is packed with 50 or 60 Jamaican men casually dressed in jeans and T-shirts.

Griffin begins with song. “Welcome Holy Spirit,” he sings, his voice joined by a swelling congregation of male voices. “Fill me with your power. Live inside of me.” Over the next hour, he led the congregation in song and prayer, peppered with spontaneous testimonials about the workings of God in the congregants’ everyday lives. But the heart of the service was his sermon, given just before sharing the wafers and wine of communion. “God loves us, because guess what, God created us,” he said, addressing his congregation in a loud voice, spreading a message of peace and acceptance. “And God did not create us just to sit around and hate us, just because we choose to love someone of the same gender.” Heads nodded fervently around the room.

As you might imagine, this type of service is definitely not kosher in Jamaica.

Ministers here regularly condemn homosexuality as a mortal sin, citing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and God’s destruction of these cities because of the immoral behavior of their gay inhabitants. They also frequently quote verse 20:13 of Leviticus, which declares: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

“Ministers here are endorsing violent acts, calls for murder, to incite riots,” Griffin said. “I hear it being done here, I read it in the papers here, I have even heard it myself. They tell me: ‘We don’t believe in homosexuality and homosexuals should be killed because that’s what the scripture says.’” These beliefs also feed another equally pernicious notion about homosexuality. Since gayness is seen as an ungodly and unnatural act it is widely believed that the only way a young person becomes gay is by being coerced or raped by a gay man.

Being gay and faithful, after all, cannot exist together, silly!

Religion is a central aspect of life for nearly everyone in Jamaica, explained Griffin, “but if you are gay, you can’t find places to talk about the issues that you’re going through. It may be the issue of my relationship. It may be the issue of my partner dying. It may be wanting to adopt a child or having a child. Or it may the issue of how do I connect my spiritual soul to something greater than what I am?”

“Living in a closet is a soul-killer,” he said, explaining that until the Sunshine Cathedral was founded in Jamaica, gay men had no place to express their spirituality or to explore the meaning of their lives in an accepting environment. Instead, he said, if a gay man walks into any other Jamaican church and asks for help, the standard response is that they must give up their gay lifestyle and practices.

“Ministers here would be happy to counsel you on how to convert from your homosexuality,” he said. “They don’t want to talk to you about how to live your life as a healthy gay person or lesbian. They’ll tell you that homosexuality’s wrong, repent, and don’t live that life anymore. Well, asking me to repent of that is like asking me to repent of my eye color — I can’t change my eye color any more than I can change my sexuality. It’s part of who I am, and I go back to that I think it’s all a gift of the divine.”

But maybe it’s just because there hasn’t been a significant uprising. A game changing moment. Something to put in the history books.

“But I don’t think Jamaica has had their Stonewall yet,” he said, referring to an uprising in New York City in 1969 that signaled the beginning of the gay rights movement in the United States. “I think they’ve come very close a couple times, but until they have their Stonewall, I don’t think the nation as a whole is going take this real seriously.”

“There are a younger group of gays and lesbians who are coming onto the scene and saying, man the torpedoes and full speed ahead, let’s get this gay thing done,” he said. “They’re ready. I think if the moment came, and the word was given, they would be in the streets marching. But as the gay community becomes more visible, more organized, more present, and begins to ask for more rights, more protection, there is going to be a pushback, a backlash. And I know that’s probably a reality, that it’s going to happen, but it scares me. Because I know life would be lost, and life is precious. And enough blood has been shed already in Jamaica over this issue.”

By:           editor editor
On:           Sep 25, 2009
Tagged: , ,
  • 87 Comments
    • Brian
      Brian

      To the “gay Christians” in Jamaica: Move! Pick a Country that has less religion, that’s where LGBTQ people have the most equality.

      Let’s not have gay religious people start apologizing for those “bad” Christians in Jamaica – Christian is Christian until you formally change your beliefs about us. That includes you Vicki Gene.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kamikapse
      Kamikapse

      “To the “gay Christians” in Jamaica: Move! Pick a Country that has less religion, that’s where LGBTQ people have the most equality.”

      … which kinda rules out *your* country too

      Sep 25, 2009 at 12:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • YellowRanger
      YellowRanger

      How any gay person can call themselves a christian is something I will never understand.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 1:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      @YellowRanger: The only explanation is that Christianity was put in their heads before they could think and reason. Now, they’re “infected.” Reason is the cure, but they’ve been taught to reject reason, evidence and especially those “non-believers.” Satan sends non-believers to persuade them with devious tools like logic, science, math, history, evidence and reason. Silly Satan.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 1:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles Merrill
      Charles Merrill

      @Brian: I agree, they should move. Many religious LGBT’s in the U.S. southern states have this same mindset. It’s all they know as the Christian myths were taught to them from childhood. If they lived in Saudi Arabia they would be a Muslim.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      While stories like this are terribly sad, it’s always interesting to see how they attract the rabid atheists . Diehard atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists in my opinion. Same annoying, aggressive personality type, different belief system.

      Personally, I’m perfectly happy being both gay and christian, but I understand my views aren’t for everyone. I’ll never understand how some people (fundamentalists or atheists) can be so bitter.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @Republican: But doesn’t the Bible say gays are wrong? If so, how does one follow something that says they are wrong. I’m just wondering.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jerrycarlin
      jerrycarlin

      I’m gay and Christian. I was born that way. Some Christians hate me others don’t. Jesus loves me. I do my best to love Jesus. Some people think I’m stupid to believe in God. Others don’t. What people think of me isn’t my concern. I do know how I can be gay and Christian and that is my business. I’ll share if asked but mostly people don’t give it a second thought a sort of live and let live attitude I suspect.

      I believe there are churches in The United States that call for killing homosexuals. It would interesting if the media reported about congregations that are led to murder homos. We would most likely see average white and black Americans, people we encounter perhaps in our own towns on a daily basis, who would consider doing what they are told to do based on their pastor’s command. Done of course all in the name of Jesus. I’m telling you all. I know Jesus isn’t down with any of that nonsense.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 2:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spiritual
      Spiritual

      It does seem strange to see how gays of various sects of Christianity choose to continue with their faith even through the oppressive doctrines of their particular sect condemn them to hell.

      Why those people choose to follow such sects when the sect leaders make it clear exactly how they feel about gay people is beyond me, perhaps they are into a little bit of S & M. And don’t mind being humiliated on a routine basis?

      Sep 25, 2009 at 2:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @jerrycarlin: “I’m gay and Christian. I was born that way. Some Christians hate me others don’t.”

      Really? Which Christians have ended the “belief” and “teaching” that “homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant.” PLEASE provide a list.

      After you were “born that way,” did you explore the 34,000 different religions in the World? Maybe pick the one that made the most sense? Maybe one that stood for “equality?” Or did you leave this apparently important decision for your parents?

      Sep 25, 2009 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Republican: “While stories like this are terribly sad, it’s always interesting to see how they attract the rabid atheists.”

      Gee Whiz. What “rabid atheists?” LGBTQ people of varying faiths are asking why Christians tolerate the traditional belief that homosexuals are wrong? It’s a fair question. Blaming atheists is inaccurate and only deflects the concern of many in our community.

      As a Christian yourself – why do you tolerate that belief? That Christian belief is killing your innocent LGBTQ brothers and sisters in Jamaica, leading gay teens to commit suicide, contributing to thousands of hate crimes AND preventing our Equality. What are you doing about that? Blaming atheists, again?

      Sep 25, 2009 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffrey
      Jeffrey

      @Spiritual: “It does seem strange to see how gays of various sects of Christianity choose to continue with their faith even through the oppressive doctrines of their particular sect condemn them to hell.”

      Very strange, indeed. Perhaps it is because they were indoctrinated at such a young, impressionable age. It seems like an infection or virus. I have to admit that when I was raised I got the infection (Baptist), but in college I found the cure: education.

      I have a few gay-Christian friends. They tell me “they can’t help themselves.” I wish they would help themselves and discover the truth about religion. Religion is not a friend of gays and lesbians. Never has been, never will be. Amen.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Larry
      Larry

      I’m also of the opinion that gay people shouldn’t be Christians. Believing in God is one thing, but it makes no sense to willfully be part of an organization with a nearly 2,000-year history of killing and oppressing us.

      Christianity, on the whole, isn’t going to change any time soon, certainly not within our lifetimes. Sure, there might be some gay churches like the MCC and gay-friendly ones like the Episcopalians, but the overwhelming majority of churches in the U.S. and around the world remain steadfastly anti-gay, many of them violently so.

      To be a gay Christian means that you will spend your life struggling to defend yourself against Christians who can point to multiple verses in the Bible that condemn you. And don’t try to pretend like passages in the Book of Leviticus and so on don’t REALLY condemn gays — otherwise, they wouldn’t be interpreted as such for thousands of years by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

      Sep 25, 2009 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Larry: “Christianity, on the whole, isn’t going to change any time soon, certainly not within our lifetimes.”

      Don’t give up so easy Larry. We are in the process of getting “New Christians” that don’t believe we are wrong, sinful or deviant.

      http://www.queerty.com/lutherans-threaten-to-withhold-the-benjamins-from-gay-loving-church-20090924/

      Sep 25, 2009 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Disgusted American
      Disgusted American

      Ohhh Im gonna throw up….please, in our galaxy with Billions of Stars,Suns,and planets…100,000lt yrs across..in a Universe with Billions of Galaxies…you honestly think there is some mysterious sky God Judging us puney humans,on this tiny nothing of a planet,in a tiny solar system that lies 3/4 of the way out from the center og our galaxy?,and this mysterious God actually cares about what we do with our penis’and vaginas? Really..???

      Sep 25, 2009 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal(the original)
      sal(the original)

      here is a shit hole..”ill pray for that gay demon inside of you to come out”tired of people who think sayin stuff like that doesnt sound crazy

      Sep 25, 2009 at 10:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @Brian: …and it’s back to pretending the wide variety of belief among Christians doesn’t exist, or, adding your “New Christians” post later in, that all within a single congregation have to agree on absolutely everything or they need to split. I’m starting to wonder if you’re even *capable* of talking about anything else.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 3:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AChristian
      AChristian

      No offense to the atheists here but you aren’t being fair to the faith. Christians have held a variety of opinions for a long time. And while it is true there are Christians killing gays in Jamaica, that isn’t because they are Christians but because of a dogma they follow. To be a Christian is to be a Christ(Messiah) follower. The meaning and beliefs behind that vary so greatly between churches you can’t put Christianity into a box. Also, perhaps people want to stay in Jamaica to make a difference ala MLK. If the gays in America hadn’t fought we would still be thrown in prison. You only get rights by changing the minds of the oppressors. And to believe that Christians aren’t changing their opinions is absurd. I go to a conservative Christian college and am overwhelmingly supported by my peers.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @hyhybt: Answer the question: Which Christian Denominations no longer believe or teach the traditional Christian belief that “homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant.”

      So far, nobody has found a single one – not even a single church.

      Please, share with us if you have found any.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @AChristian: Answer the question: Which Christian Denominations no longer believe or teach the traditional Christian belief that “homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant.”

      If you know of any, please share.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 2:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @Brian: I won’t answer because you’re asking the wrong question. What matters more is what *individual* Christians believe, and pretending that everyone holds to some official denominational position on *anything* is simply absurd.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 2:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AChristian
      AChristian

      I’m guessing ‘gay church’s’ don’t count ala Metropolitan churches? So off the top of my head. Alright theres the Old Catholic Church, the UCOC, Unitarian Universalits, United Church of Canada, some ECLA, Episcopalian,Quaker and Presbyterians churches as well.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      HYHYBT

      Brian has been provided with links to MCC and UUA websites, on which both denominations express their rejection of ‘homosexuality is sin’, and Brian continues to ask for the same information, over and over again.

      He will simply dismiss anything provided to him, because his request is not about the truth, but about brow-beating others.

      I’ve asked repeatedly for even one example of an explicitly atheist organization that is openly working to create civil equality for GLBTQ people.

      So far, no one has provided even one example. Twice I’ve made the effort to provide substantiating evidence about the denominations that reject ‘homosexuality is sin’, but not one example has been presented of a parallel atheist org.

      Brian is simply badgering people of faith, to avoid addressing reality. Christianity is a huge and complex collection of people, beliefs, traditions, opinions and ideas, within an even larger collection, called religion. But to make their hate for people of faith even remotely acceptable, Brian and his peers have reduced all of that complexity, all of those lives and experiences and opinions, to just the cherry-picked portion useful to them.

      I suspect that this all but incoherent rage and extraordinary hate that fundamentalist atheists here are living so loudly, has its roots in their inability to accomplish social change on their own, doubt about the integrity of their own belief, and perhaps, an innate hunger to harm other people.

      Homophobes reject the lives and experiences of 1 in 10 people and hate those people; atheists reject the lives and experiences of 9 out of 10 people, and many are consumed with hate. It is not surprising that those who reject most of humanity would work so hard to focus attention on people who reject far fewer people.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      I know, I know… it’s just that for the last several months (but not before that) this place has been pretty well overrun with comments like Brian’s, including within the articles themselves. Notice the headline on this one, for instance.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 3:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian

      @hyhybt: There are more than 1,800 different “Christian” denominations – each with slightly different beliefs. yeah, “beliefs” matter.

      Plus, Episcopalians and Lutherans are splitting BECAUSE of a difference of “beliefs.”

      MCC and UUA have never rejected the traditional Christian belief that “homosexuals are wrong.”

      If you believe they have, please provide some evidence. I know you get all crazy about the word “evidence,” but it’s the only way to determine if MCC and UUA have done “anything” regarding rejecting that belief.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian

      @AChristian: “I’m guessing ‘gay church’s’ don’t count ala Metropolitan churches? So off the top of my head. Alright theres the Old Catholic Church, the UCOC, Unitarian Universalits, United Church of Canada, some ECLA, Episcopalian,Quaker and Presbyterians churches as well.”

      NONE of the above denominations have rejected the traditional Christian belief that “homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant.” Not one.

      Episcopalians simply made Vicki Gene the first “gay” Bishop and half their membership are leaving. Lutherans okay’d “gay clergy” and half their membership are leaving.

      NO Christian denomination or individual Church has rejected the Christian belief that homosexuals are wrong. None.

      IF you find one – please share.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 4:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @David: I don’t know what the history is with y’all and Brian but he brings up an important point.

      If all Christianity sects are based off the bible, and the bible is hating on homos, then no matter what Christian sect you follow, to some extent you are following a religion based with a hatred of homos.

      How does one work around that? I’m just trying to understand this.

      It’s like the KKK and being black. Maybe there are some sects of the KKK that doesn’t persecute blacks and are more about increasing white power. But, their base belief in the hatred of blacks, so how could any Black person join the KKK or want to.

      Or take the Nazis. Same example.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Justin
      Justin

      I used to attend the MCC Church in Dallas and then the Cathedral of Hope (UCC). I can confirm that neither of these Christian organizations have rejected the belief that “homosexuals are wrong.” I got very tired of hearing “gay is okay,” but they would never officially change that Christian teaching.

      I’m not sure any Christian group can officially change that belief without rejecting what they profess to be “God’s (infallible) Word.” It seems like a Catch 22.

      I would attend a Church that made it very clear that homosexuality is not wrong. I spend some time with Unitarian Universalists. They’re very “gay-friendly,” but they have a quiet “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Justin
      Justin

      @hyhybt: “What matters more is what *individual* Christians believe, and pretending that everyone holds to some official denominational position on *anything* is simply absurd.”

      Then why have 1,800 different kinds (brands) of Christians? Why call yourself a Lutheran or a Methodist? Surely it is because you have slightly different beliefs than the Church across the street.

      Plus, the Bible is the Bible. What Church has officially said “forget the crap in Leviticus?” Yeah, none.

      The basis for religion is to provide a moral authority for society. How can that possibly be accomplished if there are no “beliefs” or standards. “Believe whatever you want” doesn’t sound very Christian. Many people look to religion for the answers from above – the truth, the right and wrong of life. Please don’t suggest that any religion actually resembles a buffet. That’s just crazy talk.

      Our problem as a Community is that +70% of our fellow citizens believe we are “morally wrong.” That belief doesn’t come from the locker room or the board room – it comes from Church. It comes from religion and it is imperative that we get religion to stop teaching that belief – not hanging a rainbow flag or being “inclusive” and “welcoming,” but something real. As a Christian organization, PLEASE confirm that you have extinguished the one belief that continues to harm all LGBTQ persons – because our equality requires it.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles Merrill
      Charles Merrill

      @Justin: LGBT’s following the Bible as the word of God is like Jews following the words of Mein Kampf dictating their destruction. Total denial.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AChristian
      AChristian

      I’m not sure what you mean Brian. Gene Robinson being allowed to be a priest is evidence that the majoirty of the Episcopalian denomination does not believe that. I also notice how you ignored all the other churches I mentioned. And you keep on stating no Christian church has adopted said stance yet you ignore the churches I mention ala Metropolitan. Furthermore, I have personally known pastors that do not believe homosexuality is sinful. What I think you fail to realize is that you’ve bought into a vary narrow interpretation of Scripture. If you would like to discuss the merits of that method of interpretation we can do so elsewhere. That said, even with the the view of an inerrantist and a literalist not all of them even come to the same conclusion. The acceptance or rejection of homosexuality is not and has not ever been a central Christian tenet in the mainstream community.

      Sep 27, 2009 at 7:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles Merrill
      Charles Merrill

      @AChristian: Depends on what you call “mainstream Christian community”. Throughout the south the Southern Baptists are mainstream, and they don’t want gays even to come through the doors of their church. The Southern Baptist Convention has made that a tenet. The doctrine held by members of the SBC are, “either you change your sinful lifestyle, or we don’t want you coming to our churches”.

      Sep 27, 2009 at 9:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brian
      brian

      @AChristian: “The acceptance or rejection of homosexuality is not and has not ever been a central Christian tenet in the mainstream community.

      Really. What do you base that on? The majority of Americans think homosexuals are “morally wrong.” The majority of Americans are also religious. Get it?

      If it’s not a problem for Christians, then why is the Episcopalian Church splitting after just agreeing to let gay Vicki Gene be a Bishop? Why are the Lutherans splitting after agreeing to let their gay clergy have partners?

      MCC says “gay is okay.” They never address the issue of homosexuality being wrong. They only have an article from 30 years ago that “speculates” about Bible verses. If they are willing to say homosexuality is “not wrong” why haven’t they?

      If they no longer believe or teach the traditional Christian belief that “homosexuals are wrong, sinful or deviant,” have them put that on their website. They have refused numerous requests to make that declaration.

      Hiring gay clergy isn’t progress – gays now work just about everywhere.

      Find a Christian organization that rejects the biblical passages about homosexuals. It would be nice to see.

      Sep 27, 2009 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      “They never address the issue of homosexuality being wrong. ”

      False.

      On the home page for the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churchs is a link “About Us”. On the About Us page, is a heading “Our Beliefs”, and there, are two links, one of which about sexuality and spirituality. That link goes to page with multiple documents explaining, in great detail, how traditional theology is wrong about homosexuality. One document is even title: “Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness”.

      That document contains the following quote in its opening parapgraphs:

      “Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and lesbians should be accepted – just as they are-in Christian churches, and homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!”

      This information has been posted repeatedly here on Queerty, in threads Brian has participated in.

      Sep 27, 2009 at 10:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Regarding Justin’s falsehoods:

      I attended the MCC in San Francisco for nearly 2 decades, they consistently reject the belief ‘homosexuality is wrong’, it was preached from the pulpit and appeared on the weekly bulletin, and I’ve met and listen to clergy from several other MCC’s, including the Dallas MCC, all repudiate ‘homosexuality is sin’. I currently attend an MCC in So Cal, which is currently running a weekly Bible study specifically on how to refute ‘homosexuality is sin’ for evangelicals.

      I’ve attended, repeately, a number of UUA churches as well, they consistently repudiate ‘homosexuality is sin’.

      On the Dallas MCC website, is a lengthy list of documents refuting, in detail, the premise that homosexuality is sin. The list is available here:

      http://www.mccgd.org/content/documents.asp

      “Plus, the Bible is the Bible. What Church has officially said “forget the crap in Leviticus?” Yeah, none.”

      Here is where the dishonesty from Justin and Brian is the most foul, the most obvious. They dismiss out of hand the lengthy and detailed papers refuting ‘homosexuality is sin’ that have been published by MCC and other welcoming, gay-affirming congregations, yet those documents answer the very questions they keep besmirching Christians with.

      One of the first points many people make, when refuting ‘homosexuality is sin’, is to point out that Christians are not bound by the Levitical code, and that when anyone uses any part of it to condemn others, they bind themselves by every single law and command.

      Justin, Brian: any point you cannot make without lying, is not worth anyone else’s time. The moment you lie about one thing, you create doubt about everything you post on any subject whatsoever.

      You are both making verifiably false claims, despite having been provided with accurate information repeatedly.

      “NO Christian denomination or individual Church has rejected the Christian belief that homosexuals are wrong. None.”

      So the above is simply a lie. When though, will Brian sign a Declaration asserting that lying to people is wrong. He’s been asked before, when will he sign?

      Sep 27, 2009 at 11:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      @scott ny’er:

      Actually, Scott, Brian does not bring up a valid point. He repeats a falsehood about several very large organizations that have consistently nurtured and supported GLBTQ people and our quest for civil equality, as well as HIV/AIDS education and hospice and activism.

      I don’t know what the history is with y’all and Brian but he brings up an important point.

      “and the bible is hating on homos,”

      It is not. Some people, over the course of 700 to 1300 years, have created an interpretation of a handful of passages, out the entire huge document, through out-right fraud, errors of translation, irrational assumption, and fallacious assumptions.

      Jesus said nothing condemning homosexuality, lovemaking between two people of the same gender, or homosexuals in general. Jesus taught extensively about ending injustice, condemning bigotry, and denouncing religious authorities who use religion to inflict harm.

      “then no matter what Christian sect you follow, to some extent you are following a religion based with a hatred of homos.”

      It is a shame that you are using a derogatory term to describe millions of human beings. However, your conclusion quoted above is based on a false premise, and reaches therefore a false conclusion.

      The problem I have with it, is that you are repeating that false premise as if it were factual, and in doing so, jeopardize GLBTQ people.

      Your false parallels are abusive and degrading. Coupled with the degrading term you used to designate GLBTQ people, that is a sad pattern that reflects very poorly on you.

      The real irony in all of this, of course, is that while Brian and Justin continue to repeated proven lies about MCC and UUA, neither has yet provided even one example of an explicitly atheist organization that is doing anything to advance civil equality for GLBTQ people.

      I was able to open a browser window, go to Google, type in just 5 letters, and find evidence that refuted their false claims. Are they unable to make the effort to find an atheist org that supports GLBTQ civil rights, or is there simply no such org?

      I did look for such an organization, spent a good 45 minutes reading links from Google; not one atheist org I found explicitly affirmed support for GLBTQ civil rights – but, I’m open to the possibility that such a group exists, and just didn’t rank high enough in google for me to find it. So I ask, and have not received.

      The fact is that the majority of support for GLBTQ civil rights has come from people of faith, not atheists.

      Sep 27, 2009 at 11:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @David: Thanks for your answer. I do not follow any Christian based faith so I’ll take your word for what you say. I was under the impression that the Bible does have passages that are not pro-gay. So what is the truth with these passages that anti-gay peeps seem to use to fuel their argument of their hatred of gays? Does it not exist or are they just twisting the scripture to their own interpretation?

      I did a quick search and found this…
      “The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

      Now, again, it’s a quote from some site, so I really should be investigating it more but I’ll assume it’s fine.

      Regarding the use of homos. I use that term with the term heteros. It’s a way to shorten the words for faster typing. It’s not to be taken offensively. I get why you see that but I’ve actually seen that term used a lot, descriptively and feel that term has lost most of it’s venom. Now, faggot… that’s another word I feel is derogatory but others do not.

      Regarding atheist orgs. I really don’t care. I wasn’t asking about that. That’s your discussion with Brian and whomever else. I never brought it up. I’m mainly asked how followers of Christian, who are gay, can come to terms with a religion that is based on a book, that states homosexuality is a sin. You say it does not. I found scripture that says otherwise. No matter how small, it is there.

      Oh and thanks for judging me. “Reflects poorly on you”. Nice touch. I found that to be a little offensive. I guess that reflects highly for you.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 10:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      scott ny’er

      I should probably dismiss your post out of hand, since that is the standard around here.

      “I was under the impression that the Bible does have passages that are not pro-gay.”

      That is a false impression. The account of the love between David and Jonathan is pro-gay, David’s love for Jonathan is described as ‘exceeding the love of women’, making David at least a Kinsey 4.

      “So what is the truth with these passages that anti-gay peeps seem to use to fuel their argument of their hatred of gays? Does it not exist or are they just twisting the scripture to their own interpretation?”

      I think I was pretty clear: “Some people, over the course of 700 to 1300 years, have created an interpretation of a handful of passages, out the entire huge document, through out-right fraud, errors of translation, irrational assumption, and fallacious assumptions.”

      Sep 28, 2009 at 11:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      To go into detail:

      “Genesis 19:1-13″ This references the story of Sodom. The first flaw here is fraud in the form of taking these passages out of context. The story starts quite a bit earlier, Sodom wages war against a local king, loses and is sacked. In Chapter 18, God tells Abraham that Sodom is condemned, long before the angels arrive, saying “”The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous” – Jewish tradition says of the outcry:

      “Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire. Peletith, daughter of Lot, was wedded to one of the magnates of Sodom. She saw a certain very poor man in the street of the city, and her soul was grieved on his account… Every day when she went out to draw water she put in her bucket all sorts of provisions from her home, and she fed that poor man. The men of Sodom said: How does this poor man live? When they ascertained the facts, they brought her forth to be burnt by fire. She said: Sovereign of all the worlds! maintain my right and my cause (at the hands of) the men of Sodom. And her cry ascended before the Throne of Glory. In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I will now descend and I will see whether the men of Sodom have done according to the cry of this young woman, I will turn her foundation upwards, and the surface thereof shall be turned downwards.” http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

      The next error made in using the fall of Sodom to condemn homosexuality is a pair of translations errors – one falsely translates a phrase to mean ‘the men of the city’ where it actually means ‘all the people of the city’, the second translates a specific word, yada, to mean sex. Yada means to acquire knowledge, to know, and the euphemistic meaning that ‘to know’ means sexual knowledge, appears only a handful of times in the Bible, always in a heterosexual context, and is consistently backed up with a reference to whether or not children were born later. The other 900+ times it occurs in the Bible, yada does not mean sex, does not imply sex, does not insinuate sex.

      In the context of Sodom’s history – its recent war and occupation, yada as ‘interrogate’ makes the most sense, and fits the rest of the story, including the response of the people of Sodom to Lot “Now he wants to play the judge” after Lot has vouched for his visitors.

      There is an error of reason involved here as well. Even if the writer of the Genesis account was speaking euphemistically when he used the word ‘yada’, he is then describing attempted rape. Rape is not equivalent to consensual sexual intimacy, and to use a condemnation of rape to ban consensual sexual intimacy is irrational. Additionally, the Bible does have condemnations of heterosexual rape, so to be fair, one would also then have to claim ‘heterosexuality is sin’, which homophobes do not do.

      The next error involved in using the story of Sodom is a case of avoidance, there is a clear, explicit statement in the OT, and a comparison to Sodom in the NT, that indicate what the sin of Sodom actually was, yet homophobes ignore this information:

      Ezekiel 16:49,50

      “49 ” ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

      Detestable things, which homophobes insist means homosexuality, is actually a reference to human sacrifice, the same Hebrew word appears several times prior in the same chapter of Ezekiel, in passages that accuse Jerusalem: “and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children’s blood,”.

      Notice that Ezekiel says nothing about sex, he criticizes Sodom for economic and social and religious injustice. In the NT, Jesus compares towns that are hostile to the disciples to the city of Sodom, again, not a word about sex.

      Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

      These two passages are primarily examples of two flaws – error of translation, and error of reasoning. The Hebrew for each presents a series of concepts
      a word for man that is primarily used to mean a husband
      a different word for man that indicates a man pledged in service to a deity
      a word for woman that is primarily used to mean wife
      a word for her bed
      a word for ritual uncleaniness

      The KJV and other translations mangle the text, removing the key relationship between husband and wife, one necessary to explain why women are mentioned at all in the statement. The ‘as with a woman’ makes no sense when applied to lovemaking between two men, that comparison is not necessary for the text to indicate sexual activity. The text actually states that it is forbidden for a husband to have sex with a priest in his wife’s bed, doing so is idolatry, religious impurity.

      The error of reasoning lies in assuming that a passages that explicitly invokes heterosexual intercourse applies to homosexuality. While seeing same-sex lovemaking as ‘using a man as if he were a woman’ appeases prejudice, it does not fit reality, and if taken as fact, indicates the the text itself is untrustworthy. Both passages could be construed to condemn homosexuality, if the reference to wife/woman were not included, but the inclusion of that particular element means these passages cannot. At worst, they apply to bisexuals who cheat on their spouses.

      Adultery is condemned, repeatedly, in explicit heterosexual contexts. If the Leviticual condemnation of same-sex intimacy as adultery creates a universal condemnation of same-sex intimacy, then the many, many explicit condemnations of heterosexual intimacy as adultery must also create a universal condemnation of heterosexual intimacy; if they do not, then these two passages cannot be used to create a universal condemnation of homosexuality.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 12:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      “Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. ”

      No. That is a false interpretation, one that has harmed many people.

      The frauds involved in the traditional interpretation of these verses from Romans 1 begin with raping the text by taking these verses out of context. Here’s a link, in place of quoting the entire text: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=NIV

      This particular subject begins at verse 18, so you can see, there’s 8 verses worth of information that homophobes ignore. The first important piece they ignore is: “19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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,”

      Since homosexuality occurs in nature, and had been witnessed by ancient peoples, it is part of the ‘what has been made’ that reveals God’s divine nature. Homosexuality itself is an expression of part of God’s nature. A subtle and nuanced point, often over the heads of homophobes, but there none the less.

      Next, and more important in the long run, the following:
      “21For 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. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

      24Therefore ”

      This expresses a specific context for what follows – the worship of idols, false gods, deities created by man for man, in their own image.

      Archaeologist know now, as Paul knew, that there were religions practiced in Rome that engaged in sex as religious practice, and one in particular, the worship of Cybele and Attis, was extreme by many standards. Male priests self-castrated themselves, emulating Attis, dressed as Cybele and channeled her, and had sex with male worshippers as a fertility ritual, female priestesses either had sex with male worshippers, or channeled pre-castration Attis and had sex with female worshippers.

      There is no evidence that priests and priestess were specifically chosen for their roles based on their sexual orientation, in other words, we cannot conclude that these were homosexual or bisexual clergy. Some graffiti from the time indicates that at least one priest was heterosexual in orientation, pleasuring women “off duty” so to speak. Given the cultural context, it is likely that the priests and priestess of Cybele and Attis were most heterosexual, reflecting the incidence of heterosexual to homosexuality in humans in general.

      Then the core, and the cherry-picked bits:
      ” 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

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

      The picture is of people who reject God and engage in the worship of false gods, and do so with sex. Again, documentation from the time indicates that the worship practices of the Cybele/Attis religion were extreme – public drunkenness, self-mutilation including castration, heterosexual and homosexual sex acts as worship, etc.

      The ‘unnatural’ argument is of course false, since homosexuality occurs in nature, is ‘natural’ for homosexuals. But same-sex sexual intercourse is unnatural for heterosexuals, which reinforces the idea that the priests and priestesses Paul is complaining about, and the worshippers, are primarily heterosexuals.

      It is not a condemnation of homosexuality, but of going against one’s innate sexual orientation to appease an idea about God. This is precisely what fundamentalist Christians demand of GLBTQ people – we are to abandon our own innate sexual direction and sex in a manner designed to appease someone else’s vision of God.

      The other problem is that Paul’s rant does not stop at verse 27, or even at the end of chapter 1 – he didn’t write in chapters, those divisions were introduced much later. Paul goes on to say

      “28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ”

      Sadly, this description fits fundamentalist Christians, and homophobes, far more than it fits homosexuals. Homophobes engage in most of the above just about every time they set out to talk about and condemn homosexuality.

      And we still haven’t reach the key point Paul is going for, which is: “1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. ”

      Think about that bit a moment, in light of the fact that homophobes are demanding GLBTQ people act sexually in a specific way to appease their vision of a deity,

      and they actually convince some GLBTQ people to have heterosex and marry heterosexually,

      by using a passage about people having sex to appease a deity – homophobic christians are doing the same things as the followers of Attis and Cybele.

      With Romans 1, people who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ have taken a passage that condemns their behavior, and inverted its meaning and purpose completely.

      “1 Corinthians 6:9″

      The error here is one of translation. The words in this passage that are inaccurately rendered as ‘homosexual’ or some similar concept, are ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenokoite’. Neither means homosexual. Greek, the text was written in greek, of Paul’s day, the letter is attributed to Paul, contained two common words for men who have sex with men, or homosexual in today’s english. Those words are ‘erestes’ and ‘eranamos’.

      Neither word appears anywhere in Paul’s letters, anywhere in the NT. Paul did not use the words his readers would have understood as ‘homosexuals’ or ‘gays’, neither did Jesus.

      Malakoi means ‘soft, fine’, appears in the NT as reference to clothing, and was used at the time as a slur connoting effeminacy, cowardice, greed, sloth, living an overly luxurious life, and it was primarily directed at heterosexual men who failed in business or politics, who let their wives run them, or who tried too hard to be attractive to women.

      It does not mean ‘homosexual’, and as anyone who has ever been to a gym or a leather bar knows, gay does not equate to effeminate.

      Arsenokoite is a compound word that Paul apparently made up. He did not define it, so scholars can only guess from context what he meant. He uses it within a sin list, between economic/justice crimes, and sexual/justice crimes. A reasonable guess is that it connotes some form of economic/sexual crime, and since there existed a practice of selling people as sex slaves, it is a reasonable to conclude that he was condemning the people who trade in sex slaves.

      Not homosexuals, but traders in slaves for sex.

      Bear in mind, that had Paul intended to condemn homosexuality, he had two very common words he could have used, that his readers would have unequivocally understood as meaning men who have sex with men. Paul did not use either word.

      It is irrational to conclude that he avoided two words that meant a specific concept, and instead used a barely if at all relevant slur and a word he made up, instead.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bradley
      Bradley

      I just spent two hours checking the websites for MCC and UUA – they do NOT reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong. Never. All they have are some rambling articles that say “gee whiz, maybe we have misinterpreted the Bible, especially Leviticus.”

      So, as far as I am concerned they have rejected the prominent Christian belief that homos are wrong. I don’t know why they haven’t, but they’re not getting my money until they do.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FormerClergy
      FormerClergy

      David is lying. I used to work at MCC. Bradley is correct, they don’t reject the belief that homosexuality is wrong. We had many conversations about it – they (the leadership) concluded we should always say “Gay is Okay,” and deflect questions about Biblical references. As far as I know they have never formally said homosexuality is “not wrong.” My feeling is that to do so would void their “Christian” status.

      I sent them an email. We’ll see.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Scott

      “Regarding the use of homos. I use that term with the term heteros.”

      The two are not equivalent. “heteros” does not come with the baggage that “homos” comes with, it is not currently and actively be used in a derogatory fashion.

      “It’s a way to shorten the words for faster typing.”

      Excuses, excuses. But convenience is not an acceptable excuse for dehumanizing language. Most insulting terms are shorter than the civil and appropriate term.

      “It’s not to be taken offensively. I get why you see that but I’ve actually seen that term used a lot, descriptively and feel that term has lost most of it’s venom. Now, faggot… that’s another word I feel is derogatory but others do not.”

      Your intent is irrelevant to the situation. Your use of an actively used term for denigrating GLBTQ people indicates active contempt for GLBTQ people on your part – and if you are gay or lesbian, it indicates self-hate as well.

      “You say it does not. I found scripture that says otherwise. No matter how small, it is there.”

      No, you found a handful of passages that can be interpreted in that way, through fraud and error, and in keeping with the derogatory term you applied to GLBTQ people, read them in a derogatory and demeaning way. That is why your use of the word “homos” to indicate GLBTQ people, when you could have used ‘gays’ which is 1 letter shorter, or if you are gay or lesbian, ‘us’, which is 2 letters shorter, or GLBTQ people, longer but offense free, was worthing point out. Using that term indicates something about how you see GLBTQ people – not worth the extra couples of keystrokes necessary to avoid being degrading.

      And now, for the snarkiness: “Oh and thanks for judging me. “Reflects poorly on you”. Nice touch. I found that to be a little offensive. I guess that reflects highly for you.”

      You judged me, my partner, and our friends, and thousands of other people, when you used the degradation loaded term “homos” – we are not worth the extra keystrokes needed to type an inoffensive substitute term. You judged GLBTQ people of faith, equating them with two extreme examples of bigotry.

      Now you whine when your dehumanizing statements about others are repudiated. Good grief. Clearly, you are more interested in perpetuating the bigotry against GLBTQ people, as evidence in your use of the word “homos” and your acceptance of anti-gay interpretation from a single source, then in the welfare and well-being of GLBTQ people.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 1:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @FormerClergy: You’re right. I attend MCC and we’ve been trying to get them to sign the Declaration. It has been “under consideration” for two months. I though it would have been signed immediately. But, they do have a problem with rejecting anything in the Bible. they just talk around it.

      A few members are considering suing MCC for creating the false impression that they believe homosexuals are not wrong. That may be the only way to get them to do it. If they don’t, we should get all our donations back. It is being to smell like fraud.

      I agree with the other comments. David is lying and he has no idea what he’s talking about. I stopped reading his lengthy posts a long time ago. None of it makes any sense.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Bradley

      “they do NOT reject the idea that homosexuality is wrong. Never.”

      I’ve posted the links. Your lie is not convincing.

      http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Sexuality_Spirituality

      “Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness”

      http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Sexuality_Spirituality&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=629

      “Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and lesbians should be accepted – just as they are-in Christian churches, and homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!”

      Take a look at that title in bold above. What part of it confuses you?

      First it gives a subject, Homosexuality, followed by a colon, which indicates that whatever follows is a statement about the subject.

      Next is an explicit statement “not a sin”.

      The two combined express “homosexuality is not a sin”.

      Following “not a sin”, is the statement “not a sickness”. Combined with the subject, the concept “Homosexuality is not a sickness” is expressed.

      The articles you dismiss argue clearly and explicitly that the traditional interpretation is wrong, and why. Even homophobes acknowledge, and complain, about that.

      FormerClergy

      No, I’m not lying, I posted link to an explicit statement from the MCC website.
      “Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and lesbians should be accepted – just as they are-in Christian churches, and homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!”

      Your post betrays a great deal of false information, and in my opinion, everything, including your id, is fiction.

      You said: “As far as I know they have never formally said homosexuality is “not wrong.” ”

      And from the MCC website:
      “Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and lesbians should be accepted – just as they are-in Christian churches, and homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!”

      “We had many conversations about it – they (the leadership) concluded we should always say “Gay is Okay,” ”

      It is interesting how you parrot the same lie someone else told, using a phrase that is rarely, if even, actually used in MCC’s, particularly by clergy. See, that sort of simplistic answer just doesn’t work in MCC’s, most of the congregants have invested too much time and study, and experienced too much hurt, to settle for ‘gay is okay’. Your lie, and Justin’s, indicates to me that neither of you have had much, if any, experience with MCC congregants or clergy.

      “I always say that as a Christian I cannot find any passage in the Gospels in which Jesus condemned homosexuality.” Troy Perry, founding minister of MCC.

      Another nuanced quote from Rev. Perry: “God did not create gays and lesbians so He could have something to hate!.”

      “My feeling is that to do so would void their “Christian” status.”

      Your feeling doesn’t reflect sound Christian theology. It reflects atheist false assumptions about Christianity.

      You say you sent an email. Why not provide enough information for me, and others, to call and confirm whether or not you even sent an email.

      You can claim anything you like on the internet, but, when your testimony contradicts my personal experience and the documentation I have provided, it is not convincing.

      I do find it critically important that both of you, Bradley and FormerClergy, took the time to make false accusations about MCC and about me, yet neither of you posted even one example of an atheist organization that is working for civil equality for GLBTQ people.

      I think you are trying to raise of firestorm of falsehood to avoid the truth – most of the work done to advance civil equality for GLBTQ people, has been done by people of faith.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 1:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Andy

      Provide evidence to back up your claims.

      I provided links to explicit statements rejecting ‘homosexuality is sin’ on the MCC website.

      You offer unsubstantiated claims from an anonymous id.

      “A few members are considering suing MCC for creating the false impression that they believe homosexuals are not wrong. ”

      This statement reflects a middle-school understanding of civil law. Never mind that such a suit, even if it were legal under the U.S. Constitution, would be readily refuted simply with the material I’ve cited with links here.

      Concluding with an empty dismissal, and a self-dismissing one at that, only indicates that your claims cannot be defended with facts or evidence. Your post is fiction, presented solely to mislead others and malign one of the largest and most effective organizations working for civil equality for GLBTQ people, as well as HIV/AIDS education, research and hospice.

      Passing fiction off as non-fiction has been getting writers in trouble a lot lately, something you should keep in mind before you post again.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bradley
      Bradley

      @David: You ARE an idiot. What you have provided are “articles” expressing an opinion. There is no document saying “We are MCC and we believe the following: Homosexuality is not wrong, sin or deviant.”

      It’s not there. MCC is afraid to make that statement.

      If there was an article written saying “Oprah is a Lesbian,” but Oprah herself never said it – I guess you would say she was a lesbian. That’s how stupid you are and how obvious MCC is in trying to mislead gays and lesbians.

      Count me in on that lawsuit for fraud against MCC.

      David must work for MCC. He’s a good (although wordy) liar. Homosexuality is still “officially” wrong at MCC. That’s the truth. It would be easy for MCC to change that, but they haven’t. It makes you wonder.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 2:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @David: I agree Bradley. David is an MCC Pimp. Articles written 30 years ago are not “official” beliefs.

      I’m finished with David. He apparently doesn’t understand the word “evidence.” Most religious people don’t. They prefer “stories.” Fairy tales. MCC has conned the LGBT Community and its members.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Bradley

      Even when I present evidence, you deny it.

      “There is no document saying “We are MCC and we believe the following: Homosexuality is not wrong, sin or deviant.”

      It’s not there. MCC is afraid to make that statement.”

      The MCC website has a page entitled “About Us”. On it is a set of links titled “Our Beliefs”, one of which leads to a page with a collection of documents regarding sexuality and spirituality, and on that page is a document titled: “Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness”

      So, the series of concepts is: Mcc – About us – our beliefs – on Sexuality and spirituality – homosexuality is not a sin, not a sickness.

      “Homosexuality is still “officially” wrong at MCC. That’s the truth. ”

      No. However, you are free to provide evidence, matching mine, of a statement from MCC’s website stating explicitly that homosexuality is officially wrong.

      Bradley, good luck finding an attorney to help you in your fantasy law suit.

      Andy

      “Articles written 30 years ago are not “official” beliefs.”

      That’s nonsense. Your accusations about me are little more than projection.

      “He apparently doesn’t understand the word “evidence.””

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
      –noun
      1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
      2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
      3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

      From MCC’s website: About Us/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness . . .

      “Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and lesbians should be accepted – just as they are-in Christian churches, and homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!”

      Which of the three underlined words is unclear to you?

      Sep 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Tag didn’t work.

      Andy – which of these three words “Scripture does not condemn” taken from the aforementioned quote from MCC’s Our Beliefs section of their website,

      is unclear to you? I will happily look them up for you at dictionary.com and provide you with the links so you can learn what these three words mean.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @David: IT’S AN ARTICLE. God, you are all about misleading people. It’s not the “official” belief of MCC. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bradley
      Bradley

      Good-bye David. I’ll join the others – you’re just lying.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 2:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian [Different person #1 using similar name]

      You guys would be better of just ignoring David like the rest of us. He works for MCC. He know they’re lying. His job is to deflect criticism.

      Last week he said Harvey Milk was religious. That’s when I knew he was insane.

      Ignoring David works best. Plus, he never actually says anything of value, so why waste our time? Most of us never even read his numerous comments.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Andy

      “IT’S AN ARTICLE.”

      Below are definitions of the word article, from dictionary.com. Please point out the definition that indicates that a belief cannot be expressed in an article.

      –noun
      1. a written composition in prose, usually nonfiction, on a specific topic, forming an independent part of a book or other publication, as a newspaper or magazine.
      2. an individual object, member, or portion of a class; an item or particular: an article of food; articles of clothing.
      3. something of indefinite character or description: What is that article?
      4. an item for sale; commodity.
      5. Grammar. any member of a small class of words, or, as in Swedish or Romanian, affixes, found in certain languages, as English, French, and Arabic, that are linked to nouns and that typically have a grammatical function identifying the noun as a noun rather than describing it. In English the definite article is the, the indefinite article is a or an, and their force is generally to impart specificity to the noun or to single out the referent from the class named by the noun.
      6. a clause, item, point, or particular in a contract, treaty, or other formal agreement; a condition or stipulation in a contract or bargain: The lawyers disagreed on the article covering plagiarism suits.
      7. a separate clause or provision of a statute.
      8. Slang. a person.
      9. Archaic. a subject or matter of interest, thought, business, etc.
      10. Obsolete. a specific or critical point of time; juncture or moment: the article of death.

      It would be reasonable to conclude from definition 6 that a statement of belief can indeed be expressed within an article, but please, feel free to make an effort to demonstrate to the contrary.

      “It’s not the “official” belief of MCC. ”

      From MCC’s website: About Us/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness . . .

      Please indicate, and explain fully, how the following chain of concepts, appearing on the official website of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches – not a fan site, not a wiki, but the org’s own website either:

      is not “official”
      or
      does not communicate the concept ‘we believe that homosexuality is not a sin’.

      “Articles written 30 years ago are not “official” beliefs.”

      Please provide links to external sources to substantiate your claim that there is a expiration date for statements of official beliefs. Additionally, since you seem to believe that 30 years is too long, kindly explain how the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence remain valid, more than 200 years after they were composed.

      I look forward to a detailed, substantiated reply.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 3:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @David: Like I said. It is a reference article on their website and NOT their official belief. If it was their belief, they’d sign the Declaration. Go tell your boss.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JohnNY
      JohnNY

      @David: Ohmigod. I just looked at the so-called article of beliefs referenced by David. It isn’t even on MCC stationery. It doesn’t say it’s from MCC. It’s an opinion piece – and it is not from MCC. They put it there either as ‘interesting reading,” or to mislead MGBT people.

      I think I know understand why Brian and others have called MCC a con-job. There is nothing official from MCC. I used to think it was just “curious” – now, I think it’s fraudulent.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 3:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @Brian: well, i was reading his stuff. Then skimming it. He is a little wordy.

      @David:
      Brevity, brother David, brevity. That is why I missed your explanation on how your church basically INTERPRETS “the homosexuality is wrong” scriptures in a different way they how it reads. To me, that’s PR spin. Very creative. But it’s not in plain English. But now I understand how gay Christians can exist. They are using a different interpretation of what the Bible says.

      And no, I didn’t judge you. YOU took it the wrong way. Nobody else here has been offended. It’s online/text speech. Who are you to stand up for all LGBT peeps and speak for them as if you were elected president or something.

      And in all my posts to you I’ve never demeaned you, called you names, etc. First you look down at me, saying, it reflects poorly at me, then you say I’m whining. Personal attacks. That’s quite sad, when I was trying to understand your point of view. You’ve undermined yourself even more with your holier than thou attitude.

      Sadly, you seem like a lot of the Christians, with the holier than thou attitude. I suppose it must be something that is taught thru Church. And yes, now I’m attacking you. Because clearly, turning the other cheek, and loving another is not a lesson you learned.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @Brian: If he works for them. Then that’s sad. They couldn’t have picked someone who wasn’t offensive. Sheesh.

      At least the Jehovah’s are nice people when I question them. What a jerk.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NewAtty
      NewAtty

      @David: “6. a clause, item, point, or particular in a contract, treaty, or other formal agreement; a condition or stipulation in a contract or bargain: The lawyers disagreed on the article covering plagiarism suits.” and … “It would be reasonable to conclude from definition 6 that a statement of belief can indeed be expressed within an article, but please, feel free to make an effort to demonstrate to the contrary.”

      Wow. You are crazy.

      The word “article” referenced above is from a legal document – such as “Section 3, Article 4,” not a magazine article or newspaper article. The “article” on MCCs website is an opinion article by someone rambling about “the Bible has mistakes in it.” It cannot in any way – legal or otherwise, be considered something from MCC – officially or otherwise. It may only be there to make people feel better, but it’s not “MCC’s stated beliefs,” it’s some guys opinion.

      I don’t pay much attention to your bull shit, but this one caught my eye. Hopefully, readers don’t actually think you have any idea what you’re talking about.

      I’m not sure what your problem is, but honesty is not something you value. Is all of MCC just like you?

      Sep 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      “Brevity, brother David, brevity. ”

      The moment someone complains about the amount of material presented, two things become clear:

      they are not interested in the truth
      they are not interested in what anyone else has to say

      Brian and his peers are looking for a simplistic, ‘because I said so’ statement, the type that homophobes routinely issue about GLBTQ people and homosexuality. Such statements are about asserting authority more than they are about communication or persuading others, and Brian and his peers are looking for a dictatorial approach from people who have been directly harmed by such behavior.

      “That is why I missed your explanation on how your church basically INTERPRETS “the homosexuality is wrong” scriptures in a different way they how it reads. To me, that’s PR spin. Very creative. But it’s not in plain English.”

      Laughing Out Loud. Your statement is so silly, LOL deserved being written out completely.

      The Bible was not written in English, plain or fancy. It was written Hebrew and Greek, with a little bit of Aramaic here and there.

      Your dismissal ‘different way they how it reads’ – is empty. What I actually presented was a fuller reading of the texts, fuller in scope and in evidence, than that used by traditionalists and both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheists.

      The rest of your post was simply an attack on me, personally, rather than an analysis of the material I presented. That indicates that you have no true rebuttal to the material I presented, you simply objecting to my participation.

      Oh well.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      @Andy:

      Andy

      As I said, which part of the following is unclear to you

      About Us/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness . . .

      I’m still waiting for an explanation regarding the word article, and your expiration period of 30 years.

      I’m self-employed, as I’ve indicated elsewhere, but – let’s take that little meme at face value.

      You and your peers are using the ‘he works for them’ idea as some sort of evidence that I am either not telling the truth about MCC, or do not know the truth.

      But, who would know better than an employee what the policies and beliefs are of any given organization? Someone posting as ‘FormerClergy’ claims to have worked for MCC, and his/her claims were then supposed to be factual, though they were not.

      So what’s really going on here is that you folk simply dismiss any evidence or testimony that does not fit your bigotry. Just like homophobes do.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kip
      Kip

      David = MCC

      I know that guy. He is very adept at lying and he still owes me $60. Remember David – about 3 years ago in Dallas. You borrowed money at the bar. Do you have my money yet?

      So, is this your new gig? Misleading people with bs comments? Some things never change.

      Let the reader beware.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @David: Nope. I was objecting to your attacks on me and your condescending nature.

      Things are silly, simplistic, etc. Really. Take a good look at how you are seeing other people’s points of view. Basically, you don’t. Not only are undercutting what they said, you undercut themselves.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @Kip: Well, if borrowed money and didn’t return it. Well, that’s not very Christian now, is it.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Johnny

      “It isn’t even on MCC stationery. It doesn’t say it’s from MCC. It’s an opinion piece – and it is not from MCC. They put it there either as ‘interesting reading,” or to mislead MGBT people.”

      It is kind of funny how the requirement keeps changing. It has mutated from ‘reject the idea’ to something on MCC stationary.

      Nothing on the website supports either of your guesses about motive for making that material available. Your fantasy, as degrading and childish as it is, is simply degrading and childish fiction.

      NewAtty:

      “The word “article” referenced above is from a legal document – such as “Section 3, Article 4,” not a magazine article or newspaper article.”

      No, it is from a dictionary, and it applies to a variety of kinds of documents: “a contract, treaty, or other formal agreement; a contract or bargain”. Legal documents may be used to record such agreements, but such agreements are not necessarily legal documents.

      “The “article” on MCCs website is an opinion article by someone rambling about “the Bible has mistakes in it.” It cannot in any way – legal or otherwise, be considered something from MCC – officially or otherwise.”

      It is a statement about church teaching on the denomination’s own website, presented as ‘our beliefs’. It was written by a member of the denominations clergy.

      You shouldn’t pretend to be an attorney just to give your post a faux illusion of credibility.

      Your dismissal of the articles as ‘rambling’ suggests that you have engaged in the level of academic training necessary to become an attorney, the document is question is relatively well-organized, concise, relatively free of overly-flowery language and hyperbole.

      “It may only be there to make people feel better, but it’s not “MCC’s stated beliefs,” it’s some guys opinion.”

      What is unclear to you about the following linked series of concepts: MCC’s main website/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness?

      Your ad hominem is neither appropriate, nor effective.

      Kip

      Your own last sentence says everything that needs saying about your post.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Scott

      You are invited to substantiate your accusations with examples.

      Your projections about my tone – condescending – are derogatory fantasy, presented as ad hominem – an attempt to invalidate an argument or information, by demonizing the presenter.

      It only indicates a lack of any substantive rebuttal. Frankly, tone is subjective, and the condescension you imagine in my posts is simply a product of your own biases.

      Your ‘it’s not plain english’ complaint is silly. Sorry. The Bible was not written in plain English, or fancy English, or any kind of English. English did not really exist in any recognizable form when the Bible was composed.

      Translation is not an exact science. Different languages create words to focus on particular nuances of concepts, and it is uncommon for there to be an exact concept for concept, nuance for nuance match when translating between two languages. The most consistent matches are for words that denote a specific tangible thing, like water, house, and so on, but even there, words in other languages often carry additional nuances not found in English.

      Hebrew has several words for the concept male adult person, one is very general, one has the strong connotation of husband, another indicates a man dedicated to God, a holy man, possibly but not necessarily a priest.

      To dismiss a conclusion simply because it was explained thoroughly, is silly. It is also lazy. Something isn’t correct, or incorrect, based on the number of words used to explain it.

      If that were true, then the homophobes would win – they’ve got their message down to three words.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kip
      Kip

      From the MCC Website:

      MCC’s Statement of Faith…

      This is the simple declaration of what MCC believes, as stated in our By-Laws, and accepted by our General Conference:

      “Christianity is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and is the religion set forth in the scriptures. Jesus Christ is foretold in the Old Testament, presented in the New Testament, and proclaimed by the Christian Church in every age and in every land.

      Founded in the interest of offering a church home to all who confess and believe, Metropolitan Community Churches moves in the mainstream of Christianity.

      Our faith is based upon the principles outlined in the historic creeds: Apostles and Nicene.

      We believe:

      -In one triune God, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, of one substance and of three persons: God – our Parent-Creator; Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God, God in flesh, human; and the Holy Spirit – God as our Sustainer.

      -That the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, showing forth God to every person through the law and the prophets, and finally, completely and ultimately on earth in the being of Jesus Christ.

      -That Jesus…the Christ…historically recorded as living some 2,000 years before this writing, is God incarnate, of human birth, fully God and fully human, and that by being one with God, Jesus has demonstrated once and forever that all people are likewise Children of God, being spiritually made in God’s image.

      -That the Holy Spirit is God making known God’s love and interest to all people. The Holy Spirit is God, available to and working through all who are willing to place their welfare in God’s keeping.

      -Every person is justified by grace to God through faith in Jesus Christ.

      That is the “Statement of beliefs.” Not a word about homosexuals or anything LGBT related.

      MCC = Fail. They still believe homosexuals are wrong. They’re Christians, of course they still believe that one. If they didn’t, they couldn’t actually be Christians.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kip
      Kip

      There is nothing about homosexuals on their “Human Rights” section either.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edgyguy1426
      edgyguy1426

      Although these referenced links appear on the MCC home page, they tend to be copies of sermons or pamphlets that are downloadable or for purchase by individuals and not a direct statement from the church itself. That’s the impression I get anyway. They are statements from church elders. Do the elders dictate church doctrine? Maybe. It seems they’re skirting the issue with these publications but I don’t know what they’d have to lose or gain either way.
      What’s with all the deconstruction of old testament law, anyway? Beautiful prose that it is, isn’t it easier instead of all that effort just to say it like this: N/A

      Sep 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Clarence
      Clarence

      @David: Add me to the list. David is intentionally misrepresenting what is actually on the MCC website. Sometimes I think Brian is a bit irritating, but I agree with him on this one – MCC doesn’t officially or formally or even directly believe that “homosexuality is not wrong.” I also smell fraud.

      I am going to check with a friend who goes to MCC in Atlanta and see what he knows.

      I have mixed feelings about Christians, but this David guy is a real weasel.

      “Article” in the dictionary referenced you provided meant a part of a legal contract, like Chapter 4, Article 3 and had nothing to do with an “article” written by someone wherein they express their personal opinion. You will go to great lengths to protect MCC – lying, misrepresenting, and a whole bunch of name calling. MCC must be very proud.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • St. Peter
      St. Peter

      @edgyguy1426: I agree. MCC has this kind of “gee whiz maybe the Bible really doesn’t condemn homosexuals and Paul wasn’t that bright and oh, yeah it may not mean what everyone else thinks it means,” Blah, blah, blah.

      I think if MCC was serious about LGBTQ people they would be anxious to make a very clear statement about the Christian belief that homosexuals are wrong. they must not be serious.

      They should also fire this David creep. He sounds like a con man.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kip
      Kip

      @edgyguy1426: “It seems they’re skirting the issue with these publications but I don’t know what they’d have to lose or gain either way.”

      They would gain our respect and maybe our trust. By being very clear about what they actually believe about all LGBTQ people they would define exactly what kind of Christians they are. ALL Christian believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin – until they declare otherwise. MCC never has.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Kip and company:

      What is unclear to you about the following linked series of concepts: MCC’s main website/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness?

      “They still believe homosexuals are wrong. ”

      Nothing in the material you posted substantiates this false accusation. You are invited to substantiate your claim, of course, it must now be on MCC stationary, per Johnny, and less than 30 years old.

      How many ids are you going to create to sustain this lie about a group of people who have consistently repudiated ‘homosexuality is sin’, worked diligently and at great sacrifice to advance civil equality for GLBTQ people, were/are playing a critical role in HIV/Crisis?

      The abusive flame war indicates that the material I have presented is accurate and cannot be disputed with facts, logic, or reason, only ad hominem and abuse.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • St. Peter
      St. Peter [Different person #1 using similar name]

      ^ SEE. David sounds like those Republicans that show up for Town Hall meetings – just keep repeating the lies – maybe someone will believe you.

      I think it’s very telling that MCC would actually hire someone to “spin” criticism. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, business is business.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 6:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I'll Speak up.
      I'll Speak up.

      @David: “What is unclear to you about the following linked series of concepts: MCC’s main website/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness?”

      Well, that’s obvious – it is an “article” by one person and not from the MCC Church. I see in the MCC BELIEFS posted above there is nothing about homosexuality.

      Try this concept – if MCC does not believe homosexuality is wrong, just put that statement on their website. Linking to someones “opinion” and not MCC’s is not a statement of their beliefs.

      it is insane that you think this article is evidence of anything. Just insane.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      I’ll Speak up

      Dismissing the message because you don’t like the format is lazy.

      What is unclear to you about the following linked series of concepts: MCC’s main website/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness?

      First, there is the concept of who is taking responsibility: MCC, it is their website

      Next there is the concept: We Believe

      Then a concept that narrows the focus to Sexuality and Spirituality

      And finally an explicit statement: Homosexuality: not a sin, not a sickness?

      It is a very linear, straightforward series of concepts with one specific conclusion: The organization, MCC, believes that homosexuality is not a sin, not a sickness.

      Which terms are confusing to you?

      Despite your abusive remarks, I am genuinely interested in helping you understand the plain English presented on the MCC website. Just tell which words or concepts are confusing for you.

      This thread is starting to look like a sock drawer full of puppets.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I'll Speak up.
      I'll Speak up.

      @David: it’s not from MCC, it’s simply provided on their website as “information.” Look at their “Statement of Beliefs” not reference material. Even the article you love to link to poses a question: “Homosexuality: not a sin, not a sickness?” Can you see the question mark David?

      That’s not a “statement.” The article explores the question.

      You’re going to continue to try to mislead – so, I’m with the others. I’ll just ignore you, too.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 6:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MackMichael
      MackMichael

      Actually, it is possible to be a Christian and at the same time believe that the Bible does not speak to homosexuality as we understand it today (meaning that homosexual behavior in ritual and as a form of idolatry differs from homosexual relationships). Peter J. Gomes, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard College, writes about this and how the Bible has been mistranslated and manipulated over centuries to oppress women, gays, blacks, etc.

      Whatever you may believe, it is an interesting read, and provides you with some decent information, which is never a bad thing.

      There are also all sorts of websites, like EC’s, Irene Monroe’s, etc. that address this issue. In fact, I just stumbled on a terrific essay written that describes the interpretation of the Bible, and chronicles how it began to take an anti-gay slant (actually, anti- eunuch)stance in the latter part of the 3rd century, and how that developed over the centuries into what we see today. Of course, as you might imagine, the anti-eunuch stance all unfolded through political interests. Some things never change.

      Religion is danger, because it is political, but one can always have faith.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 8:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      I’ll Speak up.,

      “Even the article you love to link to poses a question: “Homosexuality: not a sin, not a sickness?” Can you see the question mark David?”

      So, now everyone can tell that you haven’t even clicked on the link, much less read the article: http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Te…..tentID=629

      “Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness
      by Rev. Elder Don Eastman”

      The question mark you mention comes from my compilation of the connecting concepts.

      “What is unclear to you about the following linked series of concepts: MCC’s main website/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness?

      It is my use of the phrase ‘What is unclear’ that makes it a question.

      Again, what part of “MCC’s main website/Our Beliefs/Sexuality and Spirituality/Homosexuality: Not a sin, not a sickness” is unclear for you?

      It is worth pointing out that there is but one group of people who benefit from the lying about progressive churches and denominations, like MCC, which explicitly reject ‘homosexuality is sin': homophobes.

      Anyone who truly wants civil equality for GLBTQ people has a stake in recognizing the beliefs of MCC and other progressive people of faith, their contributions, and their dedication.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 8:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • onthedge
      onthedge

      why all the interest in jamaica?the same thing is happening here with minorities. all this attention to a small island that could give a shit about gays and is way out of reach.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @MackMichael: ahhh. Someone who was able to defend “being Christian and at the same time believe that the Bible does not speak to homosexuality as we understand it today” without attacking others.

      See, David… provides illumination or instruction without being negative or condescending.

      Thanks, MackMichael. Maybe I’ll check it out.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @I’ll Speak up.: I’d jump in but you guys have all that covered. Official documentation is definitely needed.

      Sep 28, 2009 at 9:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark-n-Dallas
      Mark-n-Dallas

      There is nothing on the MCC website’s “Statement of Beliefs” that says anything about homosexuality. It’s the same with the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas – they never actually commit to saying “homosexuality is not wrong, sinful or deviant.” They just don’t. They are part of the UCC which “accepts” gays and lesbians. That’s not enough.

      I encourage anyone that is a LGBTQ Christian to boycott these Churches until they make it clear (formally) that they believe and teach homosexuality is not wrong. We’re doing that in Dallas.

      Sep 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Mark-n-Dallas

      “There is nothing on the MCC website’s “Statement of Beliefs” that says anything about homosexuality. ”

      http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Te…..tentID=629

      “Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness
      by Rev. Elder Don Eastman”

      What part of the phrase “Homosexuality: Not a sin, Not a sickness” is confusing for you? It comes from the portion of their website dedicated to “Our Beliefs”, subheading “Sexuality and Spirituality”.

      Please do not tell lies.

      Oct 1, 2009 at 10:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Still no evidence, by the way, of any atheist organization that has contributed in any way to advance the civil rights of GLBTQ people.

      Additionally, does any atheist organization have a “formal” statement to the effect “homosexuality is not wrong”?

      Or are certain people pointing fingers at MCC solely to distract attention from the apparent failure of atheists to make any statement in support of GLBTQ people?

      Oct 1, 2009 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alicia banks
      alicia banks

      most rabid black gaybashers pray to a white god who hates gays too…so no biggie

      religions are all created by human men to instruct all humans how/whom to hate

      shame!!!

      alicia banks
      ELOQUENT FURY

      Nov 25, 2009 at 1:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • deogracious chisanga
      deogracious chisanga

      gays should just die beside there is is no way gays can be christians while at the same time doing what what the bible forbids so fire on all gays them should be put to death.deogracious zambia.

      Mar 21, 2012 at 9:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.