Anti-Gay-Marriage Leader Resigns

logosprincipal · November 11, 2006, 12:25pm

Some of the posts on this thread are just over-the-top. It would be like taking hearsay about what some lunatic who identifies himself as a Democrat believes and expecting every Democrat to defend himself against accusations that these statements represent his thinking, while the accuser ignores the party platform and clearly stated positions. There are wide variations in what evangelicals believe, including what the name even means, but this is becoming ridiculous.

Since so many here fear a theocracy, I’ll post this link again to give another view:

<a href=“June/July 2006 | Print Edition | First Things”>June/July 2006 | Print Edition | First Things;

golani89 · November 11, 2006, 12:25pm

I am not an expert on the issue, but go a website like askmoses.com or another orthodox website and look around you will get your answer, but it involves more than simply reading the old testament in english, there are other texts that are considered concurrently

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 12:28pm

Well, maybe I am mistaken about that, but I thought there was something about the sons of Abraham (Isaac & Lot) I think it was, that spawned different nations who were always at odds with one another. Something about the Isaac lineage being the ‘true’ lineage (because Isaac was the promised son) leading to Christianity, whereas Lot was the ‘■■■■■■■’ lineage leading to Islam. I heard this preached in a Christian church just a few years ago, right after 911.

Sorry, it’s been 25 years so I’m a little rusty on my old testament quotes.

–

"Do you know that they are to be let go after a certain period of time. "

So does that make it right? To tell someone, ‘You will be my slave. But only for x years, then I will let you go.’

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 12:30pm

Read my earlier post. My bible study class utilized the concordance extensively.

–

"What do you mean Mormonism would be the first to go?

This is a stupid discussion because Evangelicals will never have a theocracy in America"

It’s been 25 years since I engaged in serious bible study, but only a few years since I attended some born-again churches. I heard them preach about ‘returning’ our country to being a ‘Christian’ country. This was during the 2000 and 2004 elections. I’ve also seen many websites about that. (btw, no one ever addressed my comments about this country being founded by Freemasonry along with Christianity.)

As for Mormonism, we joined a Mormon homeschool co-op for awhile. I heard horror stories about how these families were rejected by the born-again homeschool co-ops. They didn’t even want their children playing with Mormon children because they were involved in a ‘cult.’ I’ve also heard born-agains describe Mormons that way: cult.

logosprincipal: You are correct that we should not lump all evangelicals together. That would be just as prejudiced as what we are claiming to be against. So, I shall clarify here that I am NOT ‘against’ evangelicals - I am against certain BEHAVIORS that are frequently found in SOME (perhaps even many) evangelical groups. It would be more accurate to say that I am against any organized religion being fanatic to the point of imposing their views on others. Christianity, in its fundamentalist/evangelical form, is of serious concern right now because of its political clout. It is largely because of their political activities in the churches that bush is in office.

golani89 · November 11, 2006, 12:35pm

The sons of Abraham were Isaac and Ishmael. Lot was Abrhamas cousin. Judaism streamed from Isaac, Arabs streamed from Ishmael. That is where the split occurs. Muslims do not accept the old testament as a base at all.

Again, I am not an expert on the laws of the Old Testament, but they are very complex and more than one-liners, I extend my suggestion again to consult an orthodox rabbinical authority or website and pose them that question. They will be more than happy to explain it. Just keep in mind, that the old testament is empty without the oral law to guide it. Think of the old testament as a code, and the oral law is the decoder.

citygirlsmom · November 11, 2006, 12:42pm

why do we have to take the golani approach to reading the old testement? any approach is valid, who is to judge which one is “right”

emeraldkity4 · November 11, 2006, 12:43pm

*Abraham, Religious Figure / Biblical Figure

<pre><code>* Born: Between 2000 B.C. and 1500 B.C.

Birthplace: Ur, Babylonia
Died: Between 2000 B.C. and 1500 B.C.
Best Known As: Patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
</code></pre>

Name at birth: Abram

Three world religions honor Abraham as their ancient patriarch and a model of faith in one God. In Judaism the 12 tribes of Israel trace their lineage to Abraham through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob. In Christian scriptures he is a spiritual ancestor, “justified by faith.” In Islam’s Koran he and another son, Ishmael, build the sacred site at Mecca, which by decree of Allah through Muhammad remains the holiest destination for Muslim pilgrims worldwide. The biblical book Genesis describes Abram’s birth in Ur (near modern Nasiriyah, Iraq), his marriage to Sarai, and God’s promise to make of him “a great nation.” God sends them on a long, dramatic, Middle Eastern journey, eventually renaming them Abraham and Sarah and periodically giving Abraham guidance and commands. The hardest of these is to offer Isaac as a human sacrifice; an angel stops Abraham at the last minute.

In Genesis, Abraham is 86 when Ishmael is born to the young servant Hagar, given to him as a second wife by the childless Sarah. Abraham is 100 and Sarah over 90 when they miraculously give birth to Isaac; Hagar and Ishmael are then sent away. After Sarah’s death, Abraham has six children by a third wife, Keturah. At age 175, he dies and is buried in Macpelah, near modern Hebron, West Bank… The near-sacrifice of Isaac is depicted in famous paintings by Andrea Mantegna (15th century); Peter Paul Rubens, Anton Van Dyck, and Rembrandt (17th century); and Marc Chagall (20th century)… There is no historical evidence of Abraham’s life, other than that in religious scriptures and commentaries.*

more background
*Jews, Christians and Muslims all consider themselves as Abraham’s spiritual offspring. However, the division of Abraham’s message into separate religions was a direct result of the two sons - one born in marriage to Sarah, the other to the Egyptian servant Hagar. Muslims claim the first born son, Ishmael, was an apostle and prophet, and was the legitimate successor. Christians and Jews believe it can only be the son resulting from conception within the marriage, or Isaac. Jews believe further that their divine message comes not only from Isaac, but from Isaac’s son Jacob.

According to all 3 scriptures (the Bible, the Koran and the Holy Scriptures of Judaism), God calls upon Abraham to sacrifice his son as the greatest test of faith. However, in the Christian and Jewish Bibles, the son chosen to sacrifice was Isaac. Muslims believe it was Ishmael. (Note: Neither son was actually sacrificed because God was just practicing a cruel test. In the end, a ram was sacrificed.)

From these original family feuds, the division between the religions continued to deepen. Christians follow the teachings of Moses, Jesus and Abraham. In Islamic religion, Muslims believe the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century carried the true word. They believed the teachings of Moses and Jesus to be distortions of the truth for which Muhammad was the remedy. Jews continued their split from Christianity by not accepting the divinity of Jesus as “the son of God”. They believe God is spiritual, not flesh, and has no human attributes. Jews also do not believe in original sin nor heaven and hell.

“Again, it is amazing that the hatred and violence we see today
between Muslims, Christians and Jews were born of the
same teachings from a man called Abraham.”*

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 12:47pm

Sorry; as I said my old testament knowledge is a bit rusty. But I know they were referring to Islam when they were preaching about it that day. That was the whole point they were making about why Islam was supposedly the ‘■■■■■■■’ religion. I’ll see if I can find something on it, because I am quite certain that they were NOT speaking of Judaism. In fact, they are very accepting of Judaism as they believe Jews will eventually become Christians. That’s what was explained to me at that born-again church, anyway.

As for your suggestion of me asking an ‘expert’ to explain the bible to me, no thank you. Been there, done that. For many years I sought to reconcile my new questions with my Christian upbringing. As logosprincipal pointed out, the so-called ‘experts’ can’t even agree amongst themselves: hence, all the hundreds of denominations even within the Christian religion.

Quite frankly, I did enough research on the bible to know that it’s not for me. I find all of their explanations to be quite a stretch. For example, the whole thing about Jesus being the ‘ultimate blood sacrifice’ is quite an outlandish attempt to make sense of what appears be unexplainable any other way: the blood sacrifice in Leviticus.

The whole idea of most of the population burning in ‘hell’ forever because they weren’t lucky enough or smart enough to choose the ‘right’ religion flies in the face of all reason and intellect. I prefer to trust the common sense that God gave me than some other humans who are just using their own intellects (or lack thereof) to decide what others are supposed to believe.

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 12:50pm

"Muslims claim the first born son, Ishmael, was an apostle and prophet, and was the legitimate successor. Christians and Jews believe it can only be the son resulting from conception within the marriage, or Isaac. "

That’s it! Thanks Emerald!

conyat · November 11, 2006, 12:53pm

logosprincipal, while it’s true that I brought up some of the more extreme folks, the garden variety theocrats I’ve met are plenty scary enough.

Drosselmeier · November 11, 2006, 1:05pm

Conyat:

Is there a Constitutional separation of Church and State? Yes. It is the law. Do all Americans have the right to free speech? Yes. That too is the law. If an American pastor employs his Constitutional right to free speech to endorse a candidate in his church, will the State remain on its side of the wall of separation? No. It will jump over the wall and demand taxes. If the church should refuse to pay them, citing the wall that separates Church and State, the state will assault the church. Effectively, this means the state at all times holds a gun against the Church, threatening either its members Constitutional right to free speech, or threatening to destroy the wall of separation between Church and State. Well, in truth, the mere fact that the State has such power over the Church means that the wall of separation does not exist.

If the Church pays taxes, then it becomes tantamount to a citizen of the United States, which destroys the Constitutional wall separating Church and State. The solution is not to tax the Church. The solution is to change the Constitution so that it finally permits the state to control the church. Currently, I think the state is simply breaking American law, and all because it is afraid of the power of the ideas that exist in the Church.

This is not entirely true. Firstly, whether the Anabaptists were fringe or mainstream is irrelevant because they were still informed by Christian thought and even considered themselves Christians. Secondly, they began to press against slavery only beginning in the 1680’s. Long before this time, even as far back as apostolic Christianity, we see Paul encouraging the slave owner Philemon to take back his runaway slave Onesimus, not as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. In Galatians 3:28, Paul even declares that Christ has ended slavery and that all are one in Him. Around the 400’s AD, Church Father, Augustine, declared slavery against Christian law. Surely not all Christians followed this belief, and many argued that slavery was permissible in view of the fact that people had expended life to purchase this sort of “property”, but the anti-slavery belief had along been established in Christianity even as far back as the apostles, and people preached it long before the Anabaptist groups. Anti-slavery sentiments in Anglicanism began as early as the 1660’s, several decades before the Anabaptists. In America, beginning with Christian groups like the Mennonites and Quakers, people began to push in earnest against other Christians who considered slavery permissible. By the 1700’s, Puritans were pressing hard against the Peculiar Institution, and this effort grew into other groups, right through the Great Awakening of the early 1700’s. During the Great Awakening, many Christians began to see the error of slavery and increased the effort to end it. By 1787, when the Founders were forming the Constitution, political leaders on behalf of southern planters were so concerned by the anti-slavery movement among the churches, they threatened to bolt the Constitutional proceedings unless the Founders explicitly codified slavery into Constitutional law. Madison rejected their desires because he too had been influenced against slavery, along with almost all of the other Founders. He compromised by including language in the Constitution protecting the ‘importation of persons’, and that only up to the year 1808. By the 1850’s, slavery was the single greatest issue dividing Americans. And the thrust against it was located almost completely in the Christian Church. Though Southern Baptists came into being because of their support of slavery, even they came to understand their position was wrong and eventually [denounced</a> its past and apologized publicly for it](<a href=“http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136]denounced”>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136).

I don’t think Christians ever really claimed to be perfect. They make mistakes. But that ought not cause us to claim ‘Christianity itself supports slavery’. The fact is, non-Christians have created the greatest destruction of human rights in the history of mankind. That still gives us no reason to claim being a non-Christian causes immorality and that we therefore need to establish a Christian theocracy. People are people, whatever they believe. They make mistakes.

C’mon, friend. Surely you see the flaw here. So I will not explain it. (to be continued…)

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 1:12pm

“while it’s true that I brought up some of the more extreme folks, the garden variety theocrats I’ve met are plenty scary enough.”

Very true. I would surmise that the fundamentalists calling for execution of gays & Pagans are undoubtedly on the fringe, in the same way as there are fringe elements who blow up abortion clinics.

But, as conyat says, the garden variety are plenty scary enough. As I mentioned in a previous post, it was the ‘garden variety’ who told me to my face that I was ‘satanic’ for being a vegetarian and having a picture of a whimsical unicorn in my living room. I’ve also been told I’m going to ‘hell’ because my having a strong faith is not good enough: I must believe in the book too.

Drosselmeier · November 11, 2006, 1:12pm

Conyat:

The issue is not the bad treatment of women, since bad is in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of the women in muslim cultures are convinced they arent being treated badly. The issue concerns cultures where equality existed between women and men, where sentiments of quality and equality such as this existed: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. Help me see where such a thing existed elsewhere. I am no longer saying it did not exist. I in fact think perhaps I am wrong here. But now I would love to see how it is that I am wrong.

Well, I think you are confusing Christians with the right-wing. It is probable that Christians and the right-wing share the same aims in many areas, but they dont share all of the aims. Christians are part of a coalition, and that means some things that parts of the coalition support are going to be rejected by the Christians things like trade with China. Plenty of Christians are pressing against trade with China. Here are some of them:

I believe that, right now, in Washington, DC, the leadership of both political parties are acting morally bankrupt when it comes to our Chinese policy. We are acting as if the highest American value is trade. Now Im in favor of trade. Economic activity is good. Economic exchange between countries is a good thing, but it is not the most important thing. It is not the highest American value. I believe wed better get a Chinese policy devoted to morality in foreign policy very soon. Gary Bauer
<a href=“http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/More_Gary_Bauer_Free_Trade.htm[/url]”>http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/More_Gary_Bauer_Free_Trade.htm</a>

Mr. Chairman, to date, there has yet to be any serious, credible linkage of trade and human rights, yet we are being asked today to forgo any possibility of linkage in the future. This is a real vote - the dictatorship will actually lose something they want. Deny Chinas PNTR today require them to move in the direction of reform and the protection of human rights.
<a href=“http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/news/press2001/052400mfn.html[/url]”>http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/news/press2001/052400mfn.html</a>
Conservatives and unions eye China’s ‘favored’ status - US coalition politics against ‘most favored nation’ status
<a href=“http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n17_v13/ai_19392834[/url]”>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n17_v13/ai_19392834</a>

It is my own position that we should demand that our government, representing the most powerful economy in the world, use trade policies to exert financial pressure on Beijing. Specifically, I joined Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, The United States Catholic Conference, International Christian Concern, and many other religious organizations in opposing “Most Favored Nation” status (MFN) for China. We lobbied hard to get Congress to withhold privileged trade policies and sweetheart financial deals from any country, but especially China, whose leaders have blood on their hands. James Dobson
<a href=“http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000250.cfm[/url]”>http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000250.cfm</a>

I could go on, of course. But I think it is clear that your position on the Christian right and China is incorrect. But this all seems quite irrelevant to the issue of free speech and the evils of Christian theocracy.

The Christians have been fighting oppressive governments quite diligently in my view. The problem is, there are so many oppressive governments I doubt the Christians even know of them all.

They have been pressing against dealing with China for decades on end, as I have shown.

golani89 · November 11, 2006, 1:20pm

CGM, this method is not the “golani method” of reading the old testament, but it is actually has been the method used for thousands of years. I dont think we will disagree that the old testament orginially is a jewish document and so it was written in a certain way that would accomadate a jewish version of the interpretation. All I am offering is a different perspective on how to interperate the text of the old testament. I want to stress again that this is not the “golani method”, but a very old and established method that has been used for thousands of years in Africa and Europe, SA and NA, by Jews.

Lealdragon, I appreciate the fact that you have spent so much time studying the bible. I think you would agree that it is avery interesting document; however, you have looked at it from the perspective of the Christian group with whom you studied. I merely am suggesting a different perspective that you will find very interesting. You know that you are not the first person to pose the question of why it says to kill all women and children or why it accepts slavery. These questions were posed hundreds and thousands of years ago by people like Rashi, Rambam, Maimondies, Nachmonidies, etc. It was even posed earlier than that by the judges and the kings of Israel. There have been alot of explanations of this. I suggest you look at them before categorically rejecting the old testament.

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 1:29pm

“I suggest you look at them before categorically rejecting the old testament.”

I agree that it is an INTERESTING document. I don’t reject it as a history book worthy of serious study; I only reject it as the infallible ‘word of God.’

I think there are many great books worthy of study. I just don’t think the bible is any more special than any other great historical document. It’s the ‘word of God’ part I am rejecting.

–

Drossel:

I eagerly await your explanation of Jesus supposedly accepting the old testament views in the ‘biblical law’ post.

–

btw, there are 2 books called The Chalice and the Blade. I am referring to the nonfiction book, not the novel.

Drosselmeier · November 11, 2006, 1:30pm

Lealdragon:

I don’t really know how to respond to this. We are all brainwashed, friend. You do not dress like the Masai because you are brainwashed. You think polygamy is wrong or right because of the same thing.

I don’ t think the opportunity for exploitation is any grander than in disorganized religion or no religion.

I think I did respond to this. So I will refer you to those posts.

Indeed He is in favor of all of these things. Please calm down and see how the system works.

Take war. The commands for war by God in the Old Testament were given to judge nations. God used Israel as an instrument to judge other nations. Well, Jesus Himself declared that He too will do likewise upon His return. He will in fact judge nations with a sword, and millions of people will perish, to be sent to a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. That is Jesus talking, and in the Gospels. If you wanna see more of Jesus’ dealing on war, read Revelation. It is pretty rough. No love there.

Take blood sacrifice. Obviously Jesus supports that because He gave up His own body as a sacrifice for sins, thereby fulfilling the Old Testament law. This is why He is often called the Sacrificial Lamb of God.

Take stoning: This is just a variation of judgment, and Jesus Himself declares He will return as judge, causing millions to perish.

golani89 · November 11, 2006, 1:39pm

Leadragon, so then why dont u try to dig deeper into those questions about the old testament from a different perspective. You still might not “buy” it but on the other hand it mite change your opinion on “detesting”, in your own words, the old testament

conyat · November 11, 2006, 1:55pm

“The issue concerns cultures where equality existed between women and men.”

You are seriously maintaining that of the thousands of cultures that have existed on the face of this earth, prior to about 30 AD or so, there were none where social equality existed between men and women? That’s laughable, sorry. This kind of ethnocentricity is one of the reasons that many of the Christian theocrats are so scary; other cultures and beliefs simply don’t count.

If you mean that all societies have had gender-specific roles and tasks, that’s probably true. But Christianity hasn’t overturned that, despite that quote from Christ. Indeed, even when Christ was on earth in human form, there was division in gender roles among his followers. It was Martha doing the cooking and cleaning, not her brother Lazarus, and women who washed Christ’s body after death.

Most of the theocrats I know are sane, well-intentioned people. They believe that the most important things in life are personal salvation and obedience to God’s will, so it’s logical to them that society should be constructed to further those ends. As a Christian, I have a hard time arguing with that, till I think of the consequences: mandated religious indoctrination, job discrimination against non-believers, etc. One of the nicest women I know will tell you that she even if the rumors about Diebold are true, she isn’t at all concerned, because the outcome was that candidates who oppose abortion were elected, which is what God wants. So in other words, no one who disagrees with her church’s teachings on abortion should be entitled to a vote that counts. The fact that this came from a sane, well intentioned person makes it scarier to me than the calls for the execution of Wiccans and gays.

Even though Christ made it clear that he had no interest in nation-building, if Christians want to establish their own theocractic country somewhere (and can do it without dispossessing others), I say more power to them, and I might be tempted to go join them if they really walk the walk. Acts I is my favorite book of the Bible and I would love to have lived at that time. But in this country, the founding fathers gave us much of the same free will that God did, and we’ve no right to take that from the people who live here.

Drosselmeier, all of your cites were about trade with China. I didn’t see one where prominent pro-lifers are calling for us to stop borrowing from China. Indeed, a prominent pro-lifer is the one doing the borrowing, and I am not seeing any calls from the Christian community for him to stop. The distinction between trade policy and borrowing policy is an important one, since all sorts of pragmatic concerns can drive trade policy.

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 2:23pm

"Take war. The commands for war by God in the Old Testament were given to judge nations. God used Israel as an instrument to judge other nations. "

You cannot use the bible to defend itself. That is circular logic. You cannot use the bible to prove that the bible itself is the ‘Word of God’ because the bible says it is. You cannot prove that it was indeed GOD who did these things just because the primitive people who wrote it believed it.

The very concept of judging an entire nation by the actions of a few (or even a majority) completely flies in the face of a ‘just and loving’ God.

I believe in individual karma. It’s a lot more merciful and just concept.

For every scripture you find to back up one thing, you can find others to back up the opposite. What about Jesus saying to ‘turn the other cheek?’ and to judge not lest thou be judged? and others too numerous to mention.

That’s yet another reason I find the very idea of basing one’s entire foundation of beliefs on a collection of writings created by dozens of various writers who lived 1000s of years ago, preposterous.

See, that’s why I find the old testament so disturbing. It is being used by fundamentalists to justify war because they think God is in favor of war. That’s twisted.

“Well, Jesus Himself declared that He too will do likewise upon His return. He will in fact judge nations with a sword, and millions of people will perish, to be sent to a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. That is Jesus talking, and in the Gospels. If you wanna see more of Jesus dealing on war, read Revelation. It is pretty rough. No love there.”

First of all, Revelation is about a vision that this guy had and even though it is interpreted to be inspired by the ‘Holy Spirit’ it is nothing less than a psychic channeling at best and the half-deluded rantings at worst. Is there wisdom in Revelation? Perhaps. It can be interpreted myriad ways. But it doesn’t necessarily reflect the teachings of Jesus, any more than any other passage in the bible. Again, for the nth time, ALL of the bible was written by HUMANS. Most of the new testament was written something like 60 years after Jesus’ death.

(I ask you: could you expect your every words to be accurately conveyed months or years after you uttered them? People misconstrue all the time. Have you ever played that game where one person whispers something in another’s ear, and so on until 20 people later it bears no resemblance to the original words?) So sure, probably SOME of the words of Jesus have remained intact, who knows? But to base laws on some books and say they are infallible because they are directly from God is insanely preposterous!

And, even more telling: NONE of it was written by Jesus himself!!!

For those who truly do think that Jesus was someone special: I invite you to cast aside religiosity and dig deeply (as golani suggests) into what remains of the records of what Jesus actually said, as we can best deduce from the writings available. But, I woulld not take ANY of it as literal, infallible truth. I would use it only as a guide and inspiration.

The Christian Conspiracy: How the Teaching of Christ Have Been Altered by Christians by L. David Moore …is a good place to start.

lealdragon · November 11, 2006, 2:26pm

“Take blood sacrifice. Obviously Jesus supports that because He gave up His own body as a sacrifice for sins, thereby fulfilling the Old Testament law. This is why He is often called the Sacrificial Lamb of God.”

Drossel, you are deviating from your normal logical approach. :-)

Sorry, but that is FAR from obvious. What is obvious is that he went willingly. What is NOT obvious is his motivation behind his action.

It is a Christian interpretation that he did it to ‘pay for our sins.’ One could just as easily interpret it as illustrating his beliefs about non-violence and turning the other cheek.

Which makes much more sense, imo.

Anti-Gay-Marriage Leader Resigns

CONNECT WITH US