I spent a summer doing missions work in Iowa. I grew to love and respect the state and, even more so, the people. Despite my affection for the Hawkeye state, there are many places in Iowa where I simply could not live – it smells too bad. That’s coming from a guy who grew up on a turkey farm. Whether it is the pig farms or the slaughter houses, many places around Iowa have an odor that is too pungent to overcome.
Recently, however, the smell from the pigs have been overwhelmed by another smell – the stench of dirty politics. Thankfully, it will be all over tonight (for Iowa), but not without one last flurry today.
The latest in a long line of underhanded political manuevers has been letters sent to pastors warning that they may forfeit their church’s tax exempt status if they participate in the caucuses. The letters were sent to Mike Huckabee supporters through out Iowa over the last few days with one pastor saying he has received nine such letters, three yesterday.
The only candidate that really benefits from a suppressed Huckabee turnout is Romney. The more I see of this type of campaigning and the more I hear from those on the inside of the campaigns, the less and less I like Mitt Romney.
Having said that, I’m not sure I buy Huckabee’s no-negative-ad-press-conference-ad. But some see it as genuine, not to mention he pulled out a fantastic appearance on Jay Leno last night. Not only was that a great pitch to Iowans, but to all of America. After watching him for two minutes, my wife said, “That’s who I want to vote for. I like him. What did you have against him again?” After seeing him as a likable, good guy and hearing him speaking about being positive, reducing the size of the federal government and lower taxes, it was hard to get her caught up on all the other things that have happened that give me trepidation about Huckabee.
It will be interesting to see how all this turns out. I think the decision by Romney to go negative or “comparative” as they like to call it, is going to come back to hurt him, especially in this caucus system. You need people really fired up about voting for you, not anxious to vote against someone else.
Huck looks to me just like what an American fascist would be like: folksy, likable, ultra-Christian, and, privately, fanatical, obstinate, inflexible (have you heard what's coming out about him in Arkansas?). In a way, I hope he wins the nomination – Democratic victory assured!
I just watched Huckabee on Leno on youtube, and I have to say, I was impressed.
I've rejected him because of the "hick" factor, but the more I hear him talk, the more I can't keep from liking him.
I especially love the idea of the Fair Tax, since I believe the graduated income tax to be a poor and unfair way to tax people. But even having only a sales tax will require a tax code, and we'll still have tax exemptions for certain things like charitable organizations, won't we?
All that aside, Huckabee's significant Iowa win and continued impressive speaking engagements are winning him fans, even among us doubters who want a viable candidate.
..have you heard what's coming out about him in Arkansas?
Are we talking about Bill Clinton in 1992 or Huckabee in 2008? ;)
Louis, I love you, but you have to be the most cynical person I know. Now, granted you have personal reasons for being so, but you see boogymen around every corner and believe every conservative to be an "American fascist."
Huckabee is a flawed candidate, just as he is a flawed individual (just like us all), but he's not a fascist. He's not going to round up gays and liberals in concentration camps. Heck, he's being called a liberal by many Republicans.
It's rough to live your life thinking people on the "other side" are out to get you. Many people on "my side" think the same things about you – that simply because you are gay, you must be part of some big conspiracy trying to take over the country and make Christianity illegal.
I spent a good portion of my adult life believing that liberals were out to destroy our nation and would do anything to defeat Christianity. Now, my disagreements with liberal policies have not changed, but my attitude toward people who are liberals has. They sincerely believe their policies are the best for our nation and individuals. I disagree, but I don't think they have any secret conspiracy agenda. Maybe I'm naive, but I just can't live that way.
Yes, I'm cynical: in this world, any sane person must be. However, note that I didn't say that Huckie-boy will be a fascist, just that he looks like what I think an American fascist will be.
From my viewpoint, evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative xianity does, indeed, come across as the enemy. Sorry, but that's true. You guys consistently oppose gay people and gay rights (and I don't for one moment buy the canard that you aren't against me personally). If it quacks, waddles, and poops like a duck, it is indeed a duck.
btw: I'm flattered that you love me.
Here's more evidence of xian hate for gays.
Hi Louis and Aaron:
It seems to me there exist Christians who love gays as people but believe they are involved in sinful behavior. It also seems to me there exist Christians who actively dislike gays because of their hatred of homosexuality (the latter group are sinfully judgmental IMO). The problem is that it doesn't really help gays when the Christians who want to deny them social rights love them. There were surely slave owners in the antebellum south who treated their slaves without cruelty, who loved their slaves but believed in the institution of slavery. Those "loved" slaves were still slaves.
your friend
Keith
Keith, you make good points and I agree that (unfortunately) there are many Christians who do indeed dislike (maybe even hate) gay people because of their opposition to what they (I) consider the sin of any sex outside of man/woman marriage.
But, of course, I don't agree with the slavery analogy. An better analogy for me would be telling a friend that the relationship they are in is not healthy and that there is something better for them out there. Even though they may feel like they are in love and may believe the person is "it" for them, you can see that they can do better and the relationship, unbeknownst to them, is actually hurting them.
It's hard to communicate that message to your friend without them thinking you hate them, don't want them to be happy or hate the one they are with. It's a hard thing to do – one that I don't particularly enjoy doing.
The problem with Aaron's analogy is that he just assumes that he knows what is right for his "friend." What gives him that right? For that matter, who does he think he is to make such a judgment? My point remains, xians exhibit virtually unassailable levels of arrogance, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and a dangerous tendency to mistake delusion for reality.
If my "friend" "communicated that message" to me, he wouldn't be my friend anymore.
Louis, I understand that – it's what makes it difficult. What gives me the right to tell you what is good for you? I don't really have that right personally. You are a grown man and can make your own personal decisions. I have no right to tell you otherwise.
Trust me, whether you believe it or not, this is not an issue of my "arrogance, hypocrisy, self-righteousness." While I am as guilty as anyone else is of those sins. I don't enjoy telling anyone that I believe their acts to be sinful, particularly in the case of hugely personal ones such as relationships.
The issue really comes in when the matter of your personal choice becomes a public policy issue. Then we have to decide and I believe traditional marriage to be beneficial to society and our culture.
What gives me the right to tell you what is good for you? I don't really have that right personally.
Um, my baloney meter just went off the charts there Aaron. I would say it this way:
Science, statistics, epidemiology, and time-tested morality can certainly tell me what is good for me AND you. So while I may not have earned the RIGHT to tell you what you should do, that does not mean I can not figure it out on some issues (others may remain in the Moral Gray Zone).
Maybe that's what you were trying to say. But I agree with you – once I try to make my personal morality a public policy, I must be able to defend it as normative and good for society, which homosexaulity is demonstrably NOT. It is at least arguable, which is why I have argued for government neutrality, rather than censure or approval. QED.
Yeah, I worded that poorly.* I meant it in terms of the relationship analogy. I don't have any real right to have my friend (in the analogy) take my advice that I gave them, even though I know it to be true. I also don't have a right to expect my friend to understand my sentiments. But none of that should stop me from sharing what I know to be truth.
Just another area where I struggle with trying to balance love and righteous. I'm so not Jesus. ;)
*I fully expect those two sentences to pop up at some point in the future to bite me in the butt as I go for a job interview at a church. "So, you as a Christian don't believe you know what is good?" There may be some people who are reading that now that are saying, "See, I told you he was a liberal and bad for our church." Heh.
Please continue to point out any area where you see me screw up, so I can at least go back in the future and point to my explanation after you pointing out my mistake. Not that it helped me so far, but it may in the future.
Congratulations you two: you just demonstrated precisely what I wrote about above. The level of arrogant self-righteousness is almost unbearably nauseating while your condescension to me personally remains at its usual level.
I think you have every right to believe whatever tripe you want, but you don't have the right to force me to conform. I'm an American citizen too, if you haven't noticed, and you christianistas have no right to abridge my rights in the name of your religion.
btw: In the face of the utter failure you straights have made of marriage, the damage you breeders have inflicted upon society, your hypocrisy in scapegoating gays just leaves me breathless. Of course, you're Christians – what can I expect?
What really fries me is that gay people want to take responsibility for our lives, build responsible relationships, contribute to society, and embrace family values, and you both find this to be some horrible attack on society and God. You make me sick, the both of you (and the rest of Christendom). What a bunch of narrow-minded, bigoted hypocrites! And what ambassadors for Christ you make.
This shows the human cost and the evil absurdity of you christianistas and your evil convictions.
I think you have every right to believe whatever tripe you want, but you don't have the right to force me to conform. I'm an American citizen too, if you haven't noticed, and you christianistas have no right to abridge my rights in the name of your religion.
I believe in science, which tells me such things. Who are you to disagree with science? ;) Once you clear up the epidemiology of homosexuality, not to mention the deleterious affect on the development of children, then you can force your morality on the rest of us. Until then, you should be ecstatic about government neutrality.
In the face of the utter failure you straights have made of marriage
The problem is not that we are straights, but sinners like yourself ;) Since gay marriages last less than straight, and extramarital affairs are also greater among straight men, I'd say you have messed up even worse.
Your solution of two wrongs won't make it right, and replacing bad heteros with homos won't fix it either, because there is such a thing as healthy heterosexuality, but there is not such thing as healthy homosexuality, since it is clearly a pathology. Clearly.
You have every right to live as you want, until you start norming your unhealthy personal behavior by foisting it on us by seeking legal approval. Live in contradiction to nature all you want, but stop pushing your sickness onto us. Really.
Or as Jesus might say, "I don't condemn you – go and sin no more."
Hi Seeker:
What evidence do you have that gay marriages last less than straight ones? It's not like many places allow gay marriage.
your friend
Keith
seeker provides the perfect answer. Why perfect? Because it proves my point perfectly.
The only pathology here is called Christianity. Clearly. So stop pushing your pathology on the rest of us.
I believe in science…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks for the great joke, creationism believer.
The only pathology here is called Christianity.
Nice rhetoric, but no data. Pathology leads to higher morbidity and mortality, while healthy behaviors lead the other way.
Active Christian faith has shown to lead to greater health and happiness, while hx is shown to be associated with higher incidences of depression, suicide, drug use, and domestic violence. One leads to sickness, the other health. That's what I mean by pathology – not your "I don't like it" definition.
Oh, gee, I wonder why hx leads to depression and other unfortunate results in some people? Answer: the anti-gay and patriarchal ideology and actions of xianity and its sad influence in the West (Islam in the Middle Ease). Here, it's clear that xianity leads to higher morbidity and mortality – for gay people. Talk about pathology! I wonder if the Jews suffered from greater levels of depression, suicide, drug use and violence in Nazi Germany? Duh!
Louis, could you please show me where I displayed "arrogant self-righteousness" in my comment, besides the fact that I disagree with you about something extremely personal and intimate? What about any of my comments prompts you to conclude that I was being self-righteous? I would honestly like an answer.
But none of that should stop me from sharing what I know to be truth.
How do you know it to be the truth? You can't know, particularly enough to intrude on others' relationships and give unwanted advice and direction on the most intimate of issues.
The issue really comes in when the matter of your personal choice becomes a public policy issue. Then we have to decide and I believe traditional marriage to be beneficial to society and our culture.
Your imposition of your religiously-based beliefs on me in the public sphere. Your opposition to gay rights in the public sphere, particularly gay marriage. Your assumption that you have the right to do so, based on your religious views. And, implicitly, your hard-heartedness and cruelty towards gay people. You may deny you feel this way, but your words and actions betray it. You should take a hard look at the ramifications of your belief-system, and try to understand exactly what it entails.
Add to this your alliance with the arch-bigot seeker.
Wolves in sheep's clothing.
How do you know it to be the truth?
Several reasons: Christianity answers the questions of life more thoroughly and convincingly than any other belief system. Having tested and tried it, I have yet to find an instance where it is proven wrong. It has demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in every area, it can be tested. Also, because I have experience truth personally. Somewhat of a you-know-it-when-you-see-it idea.
There are many things you would testify to as being truth as well. Does that classify you as in the same boat with me?
Your imposition of your religiously-based beliefs on me in the public sphere.
Somebody's values must win and someone's must lose. That's not being self-righteous and arrogant. You believe yourself to be correct, just as I do.
I don't call you self-righteous even though you constantly point out what you see as flaws in the lives of professing Christians, while possibly ignoring some of your own or those that may agree with you. I don't call you arrogant even though you do not allow for the possibility that you might be wrong about the heart (and the truth) of Christianity.
Add to this your alliance with the arch-bigot seeker.
I don't find seeker to be a bigot. I'm sure his gay friends don't either. You just disagree with him on issues. But I'll let him defend himself.
However, I will say this I have just as much an "alliance" with Keith or any other follower of Christ. That's the real bond that seeker and I share. I've met him in person as many times as I have met you, 0. I'd like to change that number for both of you, but there is no alliance. There is only people (me, seeker, you, Keith, Cineaste, Lawanda, whoever else) sharing their thoughts and opinions.
Hi Aaron and Louis:
I have a question to both of you: what does it mean to force your beliefs on someone? Clearly you can sometimes force people to behave the way you believe they should, but that doesn't make them believe the way you think they should. Nearly everyone believes it is sometimes permissible to force people to behave in certain ways–very few people think laws against murder are unfair to the murderers who just want to be free to murder–and nearly every person thinks that there's some things that people should be allowed to do in spite of the disapproval of their neighbors. I am wondering if the "forcing your beliefs down my throat" framing of the issue misleads more than it clarifies.
your friend
keith
"I believe in science…" – Seeker
ROFL! This sets a new standard in hypocrisy.
I wonder why hx leads to depression and other unfortunate results in some people? Answer: the anti-gay and patriarchal ideology and actions of xianity and its sad influence in the West (Islam in the Middle Ease)
Actually, studies from the Netherlands show that, even with social acceptance, gays still have higher than normal problems. That is to say, it is still unhealthy even without negative social pressure.
ROFL! This sets a new standard in hypocrisy.
Is that the best you can do? I provide scientific studies, and you, rather than admit that such evidence exists, would rather stoop to ad hominems? You have no argument – your ridicule shows the shallowness of your arguments, if not your character.
Your imposition of your religiously-based beliefs on me in the public sphere. Your opposition to gay rights in the public sphere, particularly gay marriage.
As I have explained ad nauseum, it does not really matter if people are motivated by faith or the humanist manifesto – when it comes to public policy, we must rely on public ethic, reason, and science.
And all three, imo, point to the fact that homosexuality is unnatural, unhealthy, and bad for childhood development. That's called *science.*
So, though we are informed, perhaps even motivated by faith, if we make sound public arguments based on science, we are not pushing opinion or religion. Your claims are mostly bogus in this regard.
I think religious people should believe whatever they want. I don't think that they should be able to use the government to enforce their moral beliefs. If Aaron and seeker don't want to have a same-sex marriage then they shouldn't, but they don't have the right to tell me I can't. In a pluralistic society, we have to accommodate people we don't happen to like or agree with, whether they like it or not. Xians have yet to learn this fact.
If I were younger I would seriously consider emigrating to a more gay-friendly country. America isn't one. Too many xians. If I've become more intolerant, it's because of xians' behavior. I find most of them to be hard-hearted, cruel, indifferent to others, arrogant and self-righteous. Every step we gay people have made towards equality and human dignity has been fought tooth and nail by xians who have an irrational hatred of hx. Who needs them and their god? Xianity, at least in its conservative/traditional/fundamentalist/evangelical/Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox forms (ie, the vast majority), is a religion by, of, and for heterosexuals. The Good News is strictly for straight people; gays need not apply. To these believers, we gay people are pathological perverts (seeker's words), unrepentant sinners, and an imminent danger to God, the family, and society. We must be either "healed" or forced back into the closet, or, perhaps, herded up. Talk about pathologies! The xian jihad against gay people and modernity, I am glad to see, has drawn back the curtain on its essential irrelevance to young peoples' lives, both intellectually and morally. Only a drastically reformed version, leavened with eastern philosophy (as it was with Greek early in its history), can establish any legitimacy with thinking people.
And all three, imo, point to the fact that homosexuality is unnatural, unhealthy, and bad for childhood development. That's called *science.*
No it isn't. That's called "faith," or, perhaps, bigotry. It's an assertion, with little to no evidence. All the "science" I've seen you produce, stinker, is religion-based, and has no support by all the professional scientific/psychological professional organizations and the vast majority of scientists who are not either religious or rogue. Yes, stinker, you are a bigot. Sorry, but it's true. Has God hardened your heart?
I think religious people should believe whatever they want. I don't think that they should be able to use the government to enforce their moral beliefs.
I disagree. ALL legislation is essentially moral in nature. The question is, which morals deserve to be enshrined as law? Thou shalt not kill? Commit adultery? Steal? Envy?
There are limits to what should be law – as I've said, some things MUST be prohibited, some regulated, and some labeled, while others should be ignored by law (government neutrality), and lastly, some things, like intact hetero families, the foundation of any orderly and healthy society, should be supported by legislation, though not mandated (e.g. tax breaks for families with children). Other examples of things that should be supported include savings, property ownership, entrepreneurship, etc.
In a pluralistic society, we have to accommodate people we don't happen to like or agree with, whether they like it or not. Xians have yet to learn this fact.
This is a false argument. By that argument, no matter what people want, we should make it law and allow it. Pluralism doesn't mean that all value systems are equal or correct. It only means that government should be limited in what it approves and what is censures. You are looking for approval and sanction, which have far reaching and potentially negative impacts on society and children, yet you don't seem to care about such things.
The Good News is strictly for straight people; gays need not apply.
Not true, the gospel is for all sinners who are willing to repent and allow God to heal them and make them holy.
To these believers, we gay people are pathological perverts (seeker's words)
Actually, I was just quoting Paul the Apostle.
It's an assertion, with little to no evidence.
While the jury is still out, there is more science supporting my view than the pro-gay stance. This lack of conclusive evidence is why I support government neutrality, rather than sanction, as you wish for.
As I have argued (How Politics Guides Psychological Policy), the APA made their decision based on politics, not science. Their decision has no weight with those interested in science.
Louis, you should listen to Seeker about gays. Though you yourself are gay, Seeker knows what's best for you. He has "science" and the apostles on his side to support his bigotry whereas you only have personal experience and human rights on yours. In his eyes, that makes him right, and you wrong.
Yes, I agree, Cineaste. seeker just keeps repeating himself, over and over, no matter what argument or facts I provide. I've answered his statements re:hx over and over, only to be met by immediate silence, followed by a repetition of his same ol' tripe (eg, hx is a "pathology," the APA's decision was political, God said so, etc.). It's pointless. I will never change his mind because his mind is not amenable to change: reason will not touch a true believer. That's the problem with religion: it puts its adherents to sleep. The only thing we can do is oppose them relentlessly, and with force if necessary.
no matter what argument or facts I provide.
Perhaps you could repeat some of them – i've seen nothing but personal opinions without facts, ad hominems, and a total lack of engagement with my perfectly reasonable arguments.
I repeat myself because you have not presented anything I have not answered previously – your same claims must be rebuffed with the same responses that disarm those claims.
You say hx is normal. I provide data that it is not. You fail to address the data, but would rather argue that you don't trust the sources. You provide no data of your own, except that the "experts" at the APA say that hx is no longer a disease – but I've already dismissed that as politics (with good reason and evidence which I've provided) rather than science.
You say human rights require that your relationship should be recognized as normal and healthy. I say that such a presumptuous step flies in the face of nature, science, tradition, and common sense. In light of that, and the probable negative impacts of telling our kids that hx is ok means that we should not just jump ahead and make it OK. I urge a perfectly fair and generous stance of government neutrality rather than censure, but for you that is not enough. You would rather put our children at greater risk of depression, suicide, and drug use so that your relationship can be officially recognized. How selfish!
You say my position is religious. I provide non-religious reasons why I oppose gay marriage. You say I'm still motivated by religion. I say that does not matter, and I explain why. You don't like that, but I have answered your objection, so all you have left is personal opinion.
You say this is a human rights issue. I say you are pushing for special rights. We disagree.
You see, just becuase I have not moved on my position, you want to call me a bigot who doesn't listen, but as far as I can tell, I have answered all of your objections with reasoned responses which you do not accept. That's fine, but to call me a bigot because of my position is not only inaccurate, it shows that you have given up on reason and argument. Fine with me, but your analysis of me is really a juvenile sour grapes attack and nothing of substance, and I think our readers can see that.
Whatever.
How does this language foster any kind of discussion? You speak of all the things Christians say and do that demonstrate how we have no ability to listen to reason or change, etc., but you show those same characteristics when discussing Christians. Then, you only acknowledge your actions and language long enough to blame Christians for that as well. Somehow everything that happens wrong is my fault or seeker's fault.
I don't buy into the gay's-taking-over conspiracy theories. I don't like living life like a victim. From much of your comments here, you seem to relish the victimhood status and seek to continue it indefinitely.
I'm sure there have been plenty of cases where someone claiming Christ has done harm to you. I hate that. I wish I could change it. But just as there is nothing I can do about being me being white and the history of slavery. All I can do is treat you with respect and dignity, even while we disagree on something that is fundamentally personal to you. I have tried to do that and will continue to work toward that, even if you insist on responding by labeling me with as many negative pejoratives as possible.
Hi Aaron:
Your comments bring up some old ideas bouncing around in my head. I think they are relevant to your post to Louis, but if not I apologize for the hijacking. I'll hopefully tie it into your specific post eventually:-)
Those of us who opposed Gulf War II when it first started often heard the argument that publicly demonstrating against the war was wrong (sometimes the argument was phrased less politely than that:-). We tried to respond as respectfully as possible, but the question I had back then was this: when we believe a war is actually wrong, that waging it makes things worse for our country, then how can we not do what we think is necessary to make things right? Being a Christian, I know I am supposed to love my "enemies" and this definitely includes people who disagree with me on politics. But since I believed I was obligated to speak what I saw as the truth about the war, what else could I do? It seems to me the same is true about you and homosexuality. Since you believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, and (am I right?) that the church has an obligation to make this clear, what else are you to do? If you feel torn between NOT wanting to communicate disregard for a gay person but WANTING to be honest about your beliefs wrt homosexuality, well that's a very difficult needle to thread. People face these kind of communication "tight squeezes' all the time, and as a Christian I need to be as charitable as I can when my "enemy" is trying to navigate the very same rough waters we all encounter.
On the other hand, let me reprise the "slavery analogy" I brought up wrt this topic before. You objected before to the analogy, but I would ask you to please reconsider. I wasn't trying to use the slavery issue to debunk the conservative Christian position on gay rights. Here's all I was aiming for. Consider the hypothetical "loving" slave master. He believes his slaves are inferior to whites, that their proper station in life is involuntary servitude, that they are rightfully held as property. But within that constraint he is concerned with their feelings and well-being-he loves them. He would not treat them harshly unless he felt it were necessary to restore what's right, he kindly addresses them when he interacts with them, he makes some sacrifices to alleviate their suffering when they go through some bad things. But he doesn't challenge the slave system.
So here is the question: is the slave wrong if he remains angry at the slaveholder, if he is unimpressed by what the master considers to be love? Surely such anger would be understandable, so surely it is understandable when gays are unimpressed by what conservative evangelical Christians call their love for the sinner. Out of the closet gay people consider the claim that homosexuality is wrong to be exactly the same kind of thing as the claim that black people are inferior to whites. You wouldn't expect blacks to be patient with claims by slave owners that "we love you, it;s just that you are inferior to us" and it seems to me unreasonable to expect gays to be more patient about what they consider to be gross bigotry.
I'm not saying we ought not try to dialog even on issues like these. I am a Christian and I believe that we can always talk with people we love (and that's supposed to be everybody). But if my position about the war and your position about homosexuality makes it impossible for our opponents to dialog with us–even though we are willing–well, all I can say is that I need to drop my gentle smug notion that I am the good guy and the person who isn't interested in conversation is the bad guy. It happens every time I seriously reflect on such things–I keep coming back to the fact that I gotta lotta big logs in my own eye that I need to take care of before I worry about the tiny splinter in my brother's eye.
So thanks for reminding me:-)
your friend
Keith
How does this language foster any kind of discussion?
It doesn't. It wasn't designed to. It's a scream in your face of frustration and anger. You can't "get it." Apparently, you never will.
I don't give a damn about your love or your hurt.
Read Keith (the only real xian around here) for a fuller explanation.
Keith,
As I said, I understand why Louis gets upset. I know this an extremely personal issue for him. I can discuss this from an outside perspective. He can't, which is why I don't get upset at him for getting upset and lashing out from time to time.
I'm simply trying to express something that Louis apparently "can't get." That it is indeed possible to believe what that the Bible teaches homosexual acts as sinful, to accept that teaching is true and to love and respect a gay individual. I'm saying it's easy to get, especially considering how crappy a job Christians (myself included) have done in expressing our own sinfulness in other areas (setting up the hypocritical charge) and it demonstrating true love to those who are gay (setting up the judgmental charge).
I know it is an emotional issue for him and many others who see it as a violation of basic human rights. I know that all too well. That's why I try to express my thoughts as calmly and rationally as possible.
I'm simply trying to cause Louis to open his eyes to his own behavior. He demands something from others that he is not willing to give. He wants us to change, to "get it." The only way I can do that in his eyes is to agree with him on all these issues. Isn't that the same thing of which he accuses Christians?
In his eyes, we want to force our morality on him and everyone else. We want to do dreadful things to homosexuals and we want them to agree with us on everything. (Is that an accurate statement of what you believe us to be, Louis?) For this he holds Christians, particularly conservative Christians, in lowest regard. Yet, Louis has often said he would support stripping basic rights from Christians and he maintains that we must agree with him on these issues or we are bigots, etc.
He calls you "the only real xian around here." Why? Because you agree with him, or at least have not voiced opposition to his positions. You are judged to be acceptable because of your agreement. That is the same sin for which I am accused.
Again, I have never said Louis was not allowed to be emotional, even angry. If he chooses to respond and react that way, it's fine, again, I know he has endured suffering and I know the issue is deeply personal. I understand that he sees my stance as proclaiming his inferiority, but I guess I would hope that everyone can acknowledge, as you say, the "big logs" in our own eyes and work to communicate in a way that leads to better understanding of us as individuals and of our various positions.
More condescension. It's interesting how xians can excuse themselves of anything.
Hi Aaron:
You wrote: I'm simply trying to express something that Louis apparently "can't get." That it is indeed possible to believe what that the Bible teaches homosexual acts as sinful, to accept that teaching is true and to love and respect a gay individual. I'm [not] saying it's easy to get, especially considering how crappy a job Christians (myself included) have done in expressing our own sinfulness in other areas (setting up the hypocritical charge) and it demonstrating true love to those who are gay (setting up the judgmental charge).
I had hoped in my post to accurately convey this difficult tight rope you face. You believe that homosexuality is wrong, just like lots of other things are wrong, but thinking something someone does is wrong doesn't preclude your loving that person. Is it possible for you to believe that homosexuality is wrong while loving the homosexual? I personally think it is, but I also think it is possible for a white man to believe that blacks are inferior and ought to be enslaved while still loving those slaves. In the latter case I you and I both agree that the loving slave owner is wrong on the fact–it is not the case that slaves ought to be enslaved, it IS the case that the institution of slavery is inherently wrong. But IMO people can be wrong (or right) on the facts about a person and still love that person. I love my children even when they do things I think are wrong.
So I understand your dilemma. All I am saying is that it seems perfectly reasonable for Louis NOT to understand. I'm not saying anything about how you should have said what you said, I was really more thinking about myself. When I protested the beginning of Gulf War II, I had a conversation with a counter demonstrator whose brother was serving in Iraq. She was very angry with me, respectful of me I should add, but she clearly thought I was wrong to BE protesting the war while we had troops on the ground. My feeling at the time was frustration; lady, I though, in a democracy it's we citizens who decide in public what policies our country takes and it's my responsibility to be part of the public debate. That's what was in my head, but what I DID was ask her if she minded if added her brother's name to my prayer list. She told me his name, she thanked me but she didn't waver in her belief that my protest themselves were wrong. And I remained frustrated.
It's this discussion here that got me thinking. I am no longer frustrated by her reaction, I understand it, I think she had a right to feel the way she did. There were no good guys, no bad guys, we just disagree. Being a mathematical type I tend to assume that every dispute can be decided, that we can metaphorically calculate the right answer and move on. But you and Louis have got me thinking that such isn't alway possible, not because one side is blind to the truth, not because BOTH sides are blind to the truth, but because that's just the way it is. In the end, I believe that the forgiveness that Christ brought to the world through his work on the cross is the thing that will reconcile these irreconcilable differences.
your friend
Keith
He calls you "the only real xian around here." Why? Because you agree with him, or at least have not voiced opposition to his positions.
I think it goes a little beyond that. It's not just that Keith agrees with him, but that Keith is even tempered, kind and generous.
However, I believe that Keith, like many liberal believers and unbelievers, views Christianity only through the lense of love – for them, God is love, but God is not really truth, righteousness, and holiness. And while many fundies only focus on the latter (an equal error), that is no reason to limit God to one facet of His nature (throwing out the judging God with the bathwater).
Keith is very good at expressing concern, and lack of judgment, which he is to be commended for.
However, many "God is only love" theologians make additional errors, like rejecting the letters of Paul, or focusing only on the Sermon on the Mount as authoritative, or thinking that God is only going to judge religious Pharisaical hypocrites, but not those who sin without religion.
However, they purposely ignore the scriptures that address God's wrath upon sin, his commands for holiness, his condemnation of sexual immorality, etc. And we as believers need to not just preach the good news, but we must first preach the bad news – as I discussed in Stick or Carrot in Gospel Preaching.
As Paul reveals in the following passage, wordly people like those who are loving ("good"), but very vew like those who are also truthful ("righteous").
Keith is right: the differences are irreconcilable. Just reading Aaron's and seeker's commentary convinces me that we shall never agree on this subject. The god of wrath and judgment and vindictive legalism is one I find unimaginable and absurd, so why bother to communicate with people who believe in such a creature? It's like talking to aliens or madmen.
The god of wrath and judgment and vindictive legalism is one I find unimaginable and absurd,
Of course, a God of justice is absurd – a loving God could care less about injustice and punishing the unrepentant – Hitler is glad for that kind of God.
Look. Simpleminded people want God to be either simply loving of simply just. But reality is that a logical and reasonable view is that love demands justice, and both would need to exist for God to be loving.
To fail in justice is to fail in love.
Hi Seeker:
I guess I disagree with your characterization of my POV.
You wrote this:
However, I believe that Keith, like many liberal believers and unbelievers, views Christianity only through the lense of love – for them, God is love, but God is not really truth, righteousness, and holiness.
I don't see it this way at all. I don't think our disagreements come from my weighing God's love more than his righteousness-or my not even believing that God is truth and righteousness. I believe God to be truth, love, righteousness and holiness, mercy, justice, all those things. I don't believe there is a conflict between any of those things, the supposed conflict between God's righteousness and his love reflect our finite vision. Even God's wrath (I claim) is a reflection of his love, the same as the wrath of a loving parent who is correcting his miscreant children. We do disagree on quite a few things, but not for the reason you give.
And probably not for the reason I'd give in my less charitable moments: that you have a legalistic view of God and thus feel a tension between expressing God's love and obeying the Law. I'd be wrong too if I said that–you have your reasons for believing different from me and I cannot read your mind to come up with the psychological factors that cause you and I to see things differently. But as a Christian trying to obey the Lord, I have no choice but use this as my lens, as my rule of thumb. The Lord summed up the law (i.e. righteousness) as: love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. My entire understanding of what it means to be obedient has to be consistent with this. If any behavior of mine seemed to me to go against loving God or loving my neighbor, then my doing that behavior–even if the behavior complied with some part of the Bible–my doing that behavior would be unloving and consequently unrighteous. The logic seems to me to be unassailable, even if you are correct about how to read the bible.
I also kind of disagree with you about pedagogy. It is true that Jesus told the sinners he forgave, that he refused to condemn, to "sin no more". But as far as I can read, Jesus never applied any kind of "tough love" preaching against sin except toward the religiously powerful who used their own supposed righteousness as clubs to beat down their more sinful neighbors. Jesus described his own mission as being a physician sent to help heal broken sinners, not to hector them. Sin is a splinter, says the Lord, and we are too see our own as much bigger than our neighbors. Removing a splinter is a medical procedure, sin being the illness. I blow this part all the time BTW, good God, I do!
I wouldn't call myself a liberal (except politically, and then I might prefer the term "leftist"). I'd call myself a theological moderate. But my disagreements with you and Aaron are disagreements about what things are true, they aren't disagreements about what Truth is.
your friend
keith
seeker hasn't the slightest idea about what justice is.
I don't believe there is a conflict between any of those things, the supposed conflict between God's righteousness and his love reflect our finite vision. Even God's wrath (I claim) is a reflection of his love, the same as the wrath of a loving parent who is correcting his miscreant children.
I entirely agree.
that you have a legalistic view of God and thus feel a tension between expressing God's love and obeying the Law.
I feel no such tension, you just seem to read my words that way. I feel that these are obviously paradoxical, but paradoxical doensn't mean "not possible" – oxymoron means that.
love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself.
But what does it mean to love God? Not just to love his person and relationship, but to love His LAW. Loving God means loving and defending truth, including the reality of, and consequences of, danger, and wickedness of sin.
<i.Jesus never applied any kind of "tough love" preaching against sin except toward the religiously powerful who used their own supposed righteousness as clubs to beat down their more sinful neighbors.
Again, if you only view the gospels as authoritative, you might come to that conclusion. But remember that
1. Jesus validated the OT law and it's rigthness
2. Paul gave us instruction in how to deal with sin – not only our own, but in the church – such as putting the unrepentant sexual sinner OUT of the church until they repent.
Hi Seeker:
I think you missed a point I was trying to make:
…that you have a legalistic view of God and thus feel a tension between expressing God's love and obeying the Law.
I feel no such tension, you just seem to read my words that way. I feel that these are obviously paradoxical, but paradoxical doensn't mean "not possible" – oxymoron means that.
This is where I think you misunderstood me. I specifically mentioned the above as a way I could (but ought not) interpret your POV.
love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself..
But what does it mean to love God? Not just to love his person and relationship, but to love His LAW.
I think we know what love MEANS, but I agree with you that if we love GOD we want to obey his commands.
Loving God means loving and defending truth, including the reality of, and consequences of, danger, and wickedness of sin.
Defending truth? Truth cannot be threatened because it's true no matter what anyone does. Loving your neighbors does require us to work for their wellbeing, to help them avoid bad things, even to help them grow. I agree with you there. This means that IF you believe that homosexuality is wrong AND that publicly condemning it is necessary to help homosexuals then love and obedience requires you to do so. But if I believe that the anti-gay orientation of our legal system deprives gays of their rights and dignity, love and obedience requires ME to oppose that.
Again, if you only view the gospels as authoritative, you might come to that conclusion. But remember that
1. Jesus validated the OT law and it's rigthness
2. Paul gave us instruction in how to deal with sin – not only our own, but in the church – such as putting the unrepentant sexual sinner OUT of the church until they repent.
I don't want to rehash the discussion we've already had about covenantal gay relationships and the Bible. That's independent of the point I was making. My point was that SINCE the entire requirement of the Law can be summed up as (a) love God with all you've got and (b) love your neighbor as yourself, I cannot obey that by doing something that I BELIEVE to violate either (a) or (b). And as long as my honest INTENTION toward God and my neighbor SATISFIES (a) and (b), I am following the law–otherwise Jesus was wrong to say that the Law was summed up by said love.
Even if it turns out that you are right and I am wrong about war and other issues, at this moment, given my beliefs, my obedience requires me to disagree with you. That's my point.
your friend
Keith
Defending truth?
Well, I feel like you are nitpicking, even if scriptures like that below might be what you are referring to:
But what I am referring to is:
Also, the entire endeavor of apologetics ("The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines") is about defending the faith, i.e. the truth.
And as long as my honest INTENTION toward God and my neighbor SATISFIES (a) and (b), I am following the law
I agree with you mostly, BUT, despite good intentions, you could be following Christ poorly if you, out of a desire to not offend others, fail to preach the truth.
This is analogous to the idea that we are to obey our consciences, even though our consciences may not be properly reflecting God's truth well.
Another example – Jesus and Paul did not just believe that people needed to be well intentioned in prayer – he instructed them in HOW to pray well, and WHAT to pray for.
Hi Seeker:
I agree with you mostly, BUT, despite good intentions, you could be following Christ poorly if you, out of a desire to not offend others, fail to preach the truth.
I agree, but would point out that our teaching STYLE should match Jesus' style too.
your friend
Keith
Good discussion and I am enjoying it.
a god of wrath and judgment and vindictive legalism is one I find unimaginable and absurd
On that we agree Louis. I'm sorry you believe that to be the God that I love and worship. He's not that at all. We find freedom in our relationship with Him and pleasure in obeying His truths.
It's so odd to be accused of following legalism here and liberalism somewhere else. It's hard to defend from both sides, but I will point you to a post I finished today about the two-sided battle that Christians face: legalism and liberalism.
Anyone who thinks that you are a liberal must be a rabid, right-wing wingnut.
I'm sorry, Aaron, but as long as your god thinks gay relationships are abominations, I will consider him a demon, and reject his religion.