Monday, May 08, 2006

An Abomination


At 12:30 PM, Blogger Nellie Bellie said...

Sad...This church has just shut out a huge population that needs to be reached. Homosexuality, not a gay person, is a branch of sin like any other sin on the tree of sins. That would be like me saying I am a Christian but I am still going to lie or steal or fornicate. God wants us to repent from our sins and give our lives to Jesus completely. May gays say, "I was born this way..." They are right, they were born a sinner and we have to turn from our sins. I suggest you read the article on about Christians and Homosexuals. We are all sinners who need a Savior, we shouldn't say that some sins are okay and others aren't. That couple you took in, yeah, show them Grace and mercy but also do as Jesus told, spread the Gospel to all. I belive you are showing only one side of God's character...loving, full of grace but also holy and just!!!
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites" 1 Corinthians 6:9

At 8:43 PM, Blogger ninjanun said...

Nellie Bellie--go look up the word "homosexual" in the original language of that passage, and you'll find that it doesn't actually mean "homosexual."

Also, King James was homosexual.

At 9:49 PM, Anonymous lj said...

Uh, take a look at the website at the bottom. It's not a real church. It's from the church sign generator website.

The slogan and story however, on, unfortunately is real.

Original word doesn't mean homosexual? Praytell, what does it mean then?

Stating it means heterosexuals committing homosexual acts, as some have tried to state, isn't textually accurate. Although, I'm sure there are versions you can find to support your claims.

King James was a homosexual? Nice touch. Fortunately he didn't write the Bible.

At 9:54 PM, Anonymous lj said...

My apologies, apparantly it IS a real church, only it's not called Trinity, it's Westboro Baptist in KS.

I found out after perusing their site, which by the way, I found sickening.

These are the people the media will focus on and paint as "true" Christians.

At 9:56 PM, Blogger Zeke said...

lj, I made that sign using the church sign generator website.

As for the original meaning of "homosexual" in ancient Greek, truth is nobody's sure about it. The KJV translated it as "effeminate." The fact that there is so little awareness of this disputed translation is a good indication of how thoroughly evangelicals have just assumed that this was a plain reading of the text.

And King James didn't write the Bible, but neither did anyone who has ever transcribed it, translated it, accepted it into canon, taught it, preached it, read it, spoke it or learned it. Point being?

At 10:06 PM, Blogger Steve said...

Actually the King James translation of the passage (1 Cor 16:9) quoted seems to get it right:

"abusers of themselves with men (mankind)" seems to be the best translation I can find of the greek word used here "arsenokoitai"

Ninja is right though... it doesn't mean homosexual. I think there is some room for what the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" might actually mean.

At 10:20 PM, Blogger Zeke said...

Steve, I think you are referring to 1 Cor 6:9, but I'll take your point and expand on it: all the other types of people who will not inherit the kingdom were (NIV, KJV in parentheses):

* the sexually immoral (fornicators)
* idolaters
* male prostitutes (the effeminate)
* homosexual offenders (abusers of themselves with mankind)
* theives
* the greedy (covetous)
* drunkards
* slanderers (revilers)
* swindlers (extortioners)

Note what company one would presume to lump gays in with, and consider that it might be possible that what Paul was condemning was male prostitutes and those who used them or pimped them. Definitely not the same as simply being gay, or even simply being sexually intimate with the same sex.

I don't have the answers, and I don't like most of the answers that evangelicals think they are so sure they've laid hold of.

At 10:56 PM, Anonymous lj said...

Zeke, I meant no offense. Perhaps my words didn't come across right. It seemed nellie bellie was upset about the sign and I was just attempting to point out that it wasn't really the church to be worked up about(although now we know it is a real church).

My intention wasn't to scold you for using the church generator site.

My comment about King James was merely that it has no relevance. The fact that he was a homosexual, of which I have no idea but have heard, is irrelevant and a weak argument in this conversation. How does that affect the text in question? It doesn't.

Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree. I don't agree that Paul was only condemning male prostitutes. I've heard all the arguments, OT references are outdated, Jesus never spoke of it, etc. But lest I be painted as one of so called Christians from the above church, I won't try to wax eloquent because I'm not capable nor do I have all the answers.

I do agree with you. It is listed with other sins and has been elevated above the others. (although of all those listed I do not believe you are born an idolator or thief any more than a homosexual, which I think is the crux of most disagreements on this issue).
I also agree that the church has mishandled this issue.

I hope you understand I'm not a hater. Like your site. Peace.

PS - isn't that picture John Brown?

At 5:05 AM, Blogger nathaniel adam king said...

You make me happy...

At 6:57 AM, Blogger Zeke said...

lj, sho nuff it's John Brown, and no offense taken. I was just coming off of a 14-hour work day and was feeling a little punchy.

And besides, my basic position is that the most appropriate response to gays (especially gay Christians) is to be gracious to them. I doubt there's a one that hasn't heard 1500 times what people think the Bible says about homosexuality, so maybe it's time to give it a rest and be Christlike to them. That's all.

At 8:36 AM, Blogger Nellie Bellie said... we should advise them,like Chist would, to turn from their sins and repent. Attacking someones sin is not Christ like, yes, but showing them the way God would have it for them is.

At 8:40 AM, Blogger Zeke said...

Soldier on then, Nellie. Do what you think Jesus would have you do.

At 9:20 AM, Blogger ninjanun said...

This is where I throw my hands up in the air in exasperation.

At 9:28 AM, Blogger Nellie Bellie said...

Soldier on I will then, remembering that we must die to our old selves, taking up our crosses daily and leaving all our old "stuff" behind. Thanks for your site, I visit it often.

At 10:09 AM, Blogger Zeke said...

Thanks for coming, Nellie. Peace.

At 3:48 PM, Blogger dufflehead said...

(enter the hornets)

so, nb, you would be the first to cast a stone?

: )

or perhaps you have no plank in your eye?

why is it that the popular interpretation of Chrit's life and death as sacrificial atonement gives people the idea that they need to get nosy about how everyone else is living?

how about this statement:
if sacrificial atonement was a resson (most definitely not the reason) for the life and death of Christ, the only way it makes sense is that Christ was doing away with the structures, systems, and powers set up by His people (i.e. Israelites) so that everyone was now on the same playing field.

lj, do you interpret paul through Jesus or Jesus through paul?

At 4:53 PM, Blogger dufflehead said...

So, Love=rebuke?

Where have I heard that before....?

At 5:18 PM, Blogger Nellie Bellie said...

Of course I have my own plank....I am not throwing stones either. My point is what is the point of the scriptures??? To guide us in our walk or to ignore. I have learned, through experience, that some people have mixed standards...mixing their own standards of living with God's. We can't take some parts of the Bible and say, "Oh, that sounds good, I'll have that." And then ignore other parts. Bottom line...God is just, holy and not mocked.

At 6:03 PM, Blogger Brad said...

The word "homosexual" wasn't even coined until 1869 by an amateur sociologist, so I'm not exactly sure how it ended up in a book that was written nearly two millenia earlier.

At 7:54 PM, Anonymous lj said...

"lj, do you interpret paul through Jesus or Jesus through paul?"

This statement is based on the assumption that all Scripture is not equal. If I understand you correctly, that means the Gospels are more inspired than Paul's writings? Do we ignore Paul simply because Jesus didn't say it?
In which case it's pointless having a theological discussion. The conversation moves into the philosophical realm and I'm no philosopher. I'm not much of a theologian either.

At 9:18 PM, Blogger shelly said...

nellie bellie wrote... we should advise them,like Chist would, to turn from their sins and repent.

If that's what you believe, then you should also tell everyone who has divorced and remarried that they need to return to their original spouses as well, based on what Christ said in Luke 16:18, and based on the verse you cited originally.

At 7:11 AM, Blogger Nellie Bellie said...

No, we don't continue to divorce and remarry, divorce and remarry over and over...Just like Jesus said to the woman caught in adultry, go and sin no more. Jesus came to the sinners and called them to repentance....nuff said.

At 1:38 PM, Blogger dufflehead said...

and you are sinning no more, right?

At 1:42 PM, Blogger dufflehead said...

and, actually, i think the Bible as a whole was to explain this crazy yahweh / Christian thing.

so, you take everything litterally in the bible, yes? keeping your head covered, not speaking up in the services, not teaching men, and all that?

and, if you check it, "scripture" according to everyone in the new testament was the old testament.

At 2:36 PM, Blogger Steve said...

"nuff said"

Now that's funny... you haven't been around too long have you Nellie.

But really, Nellie, that wasn't what Shelly asked you. According to many conservative interpretations of the passages on divorce, if a person divorces and remarries or marries a divorced person (depending on the situation I know) they may be "living in adultery" or "living in sin"... which might be impossible to repent from the "adulterous lifestyle" if one finds themselves in that situation. It is a logical conclusion.

I think what Dufflehead is aiming at is that we jump through hoops to declare ourselves or others "clean" and "repentant" that we are striving or willing to accept. It seems to depend on which "sins" we want to pick and choose according to our own comfort levels.

At 11:27 AM, Blogger dorsey said...

That's way true, Steve. I do it. I still have a lot of SCP left in me.

At 1:25 PM, Blogger Steve said...

me too

At 6:20 PM, Blogger shelly said...

Steve wrote...
But really, Nellie, that wasn't what Shelly asked you. According to many conservative interpretations of the passages on divorce, if a person divorces and remarries or marries a divorced person (depending on the situation I know) they may be "living in adultery" or "living in sin"... which might be impossible to repent from the "adulterous lifestyle" if one finds themselves in that situation. It is a logical conclusion.


I'm also partially mocking the way some Christians (mainly the conservative ones) seem to elevate some "sins" (like the act of homosexual sex) and brush off others (adultery in the form of divorce and remarriage) and using the scriptures against you to make a point: If these particular Christians expect homosexuals to repent by "going straight", then why don't they expect heterosexuals who aren't in their first marriage to repent by going back to their first spouse? Why do they call one "sin" worse than the other?

BTW, both my parents were previously married to other people before marrying each other 26 years ago. If you want to interpret the scriptures strictly "as-is", then they've been living in an adulterous lifestyle for those 26 years; and that would make me a bastard child, because I'm the product of their "adulterous relationship".

Last, no, I don't cover my head; and--considering I play piano and sing on my church's worship team (and have done so for eight and a half years or so)--I don't necessarily keep silent in the church, either. ;) On the other hand, I don't eat red meat or seafood. ;)

At 7:23 PM, Blogger Nellie Bellie said...

Pick and choose...I like this, I won't do that...It is okay with me, I guess it is okay with God...Mixed standards. In my walk with Jesus, I believe that He wants me to do my best to walk in His ways...

At 8:10 PM, Blogger Zeke said...

What a cheap shot, Nellie. You just assumed we don't want to do our best to walk in his ways, or implied at least.

Anyway, this may be my blog but I'm done with this. Later.

At 8:23 PM, Blogger dufflehead said...

yeah, that's what she said.

funny how she's trying to teach men but still thinks homosexuality is a sin.

i wonder if anyone here has ever heard of genetics? maybe psycological predisposition? take a look at twins seperated at birth and i think you'll be amazed at how much happens because of those pesky chromosomes.

At 12:36 AM, Blogger ninjanun said...

lj--to answer your question about interpreting Jesus through Paul or vice versa--

Yes, I believe the Bible is "weighted"--the words of Christ have precedence over all the others. Why? Because while all Scripture is inspired, even it does not claim to be the Word of God--in fact, it clearly states in John 1 that JESUS is the Word of God. That doesn't mean the rest is unimportant; it's a faithful witness written by people who had an experience of God and did their best (within their cultural construct, and in their various languages and ways of communicating) to write it down for others.

BTW, it was my professors at OBU who taught me why it's important to have a weighted Bible (they all insisted that we SHOULD have a weighted Bible, and most people already do, even if they don't recognize it or admit it). Yes, scripture helps us interpret other scripture verses, but you don't usually let Psalm 137:9 stand on its own without something from say, Jesus' mouth (um, love your enemies), as well as taking into account the context in which the various verses were written, the historical time-frame, etc.

So no, all Scripture is NOT equal, but that certainly doesn't mean it's not all beneficial. I would definitely say anything that came from Jesus' mouth is going to have precedence, and where Jesus is silent, we have other scriptures (and the Holy Spirit, let's not forget Her) to help us figure it out.

Hope that helps! :)

At 8:42 AM, Blogger Nellie Bellie said...

The fact is we are all born in sin...we are all genetically sinners...Why did God destroy Sodom??? Why would He be okay for His followers to be partaking in a sin that He destroyed a city over??? I wasn't implying that any one person was not trying their best to walk with God, my point was all this sounds like we want to continue living our life the way we were and we are going to justify it any way we can. I know someone who did the same thing when it came to lust and physical adultry, yes a follower of God but continued to talk himself into, it is okay, God will still accept me...but then destruction came....

At 10:02 AM, Blogger dufflehead said...

first, sodom was destroyed for their lack of hospitality. look it up.

my point with genetics is that things change over time. things are different now than when the world was created. evolution, pyschological predisposition, etc. because of genetics, we like the things we do.

destruction? what, they got caught?

i'm guessing by your comment that you think God blesses the righteous and curses the unrighteous? doesn't sound like the God i've learned about.

At 5:00 PM, Blogger Wasp Jerky said...

I'm fairly certain that the word "homosexual" in the passage being referred to was translated as masturbators for centuries.

Sodom was also destroyed for its pride and lack of charity to the poor. Interesting isn't it? The United States may be more like Sodom than the Religious Right realizes. Incidentally, both Christianity and Judaism have historically taken the view of Sodom. It's Islam that singles Sodom out for homosexuality.

At 5:01 PM, Blogger Wasp Jerky said...

*this view of Sodom*

At 9:46 PM, Blogger Christine said...

One thought I've had in the past about folks who say "Jesus told people to go and sin no more so I'm gonna go do that"...

You're not Jesus.

Did Jesus ever tell others to run around telling other people to sin no more?

I know there are commands he gave in the Bible, but they're about loving each other, and loving God, and blessing those who curse you, and so on, but I don't recall him actually telling everyone to go around telling others that they're big ol' sinners going to hell.

I figure when Jesus gives me the ability to truly see in people's hearts and minds...

When he gives me an amazing and overwhelming sense of compassion for other people....

When he gives me the ability to tell someone everything they ever did in their lives in such a loving and compassionate way that they still want to introduce me to everyone they know...

then maybe (just maybe) I'll be able to tell someone to go and sin no longer.

Don't hold your breath that this is going to happen anytime soon.

At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just want to point out that homosexual (as we understand it) is in the bible in the original tongue. It is actually translated as Sodomy not Homosexuality. When you see the word Homosexuality in the bible (depending on the translation) more often than not it is drawn from a word that means effeminate. **all of this is greek mind you** there are seperate words in Hebrew found in the Old testament


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home