Plan B Forum

Franklin Graham is calling on Christians to boycott corporations that feature same-sex relationships in their commercials.



And he says he’ll do his part by moving all the bank accounts for his two ministries out of Wells Fargo because of its ad featuring a lesbian couple.

“This is one way we as Christians can speak out – we have the power of choice,” Graham wrote on Facebook over the weekend. “Let’s just stop doing business with those who promote sin and stand against Almighty God’s laws and His standards. Maybe if enough of us do this, it will get their attention.”

Reached Monday, a spokesperson for Wells Fargo said the bank has proudly supported the LGBT community for a long time – a commitment echoed by the ad.

“At Wells Fargo, serving every customer is core to our vision and values,” said Christina Kolbjornsen. “Diversity and inclusion are foundational to who we are as a company. Our advertising content reflects our company’s values and represents the diversity of the communities we serve.”

Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, has its largest employee base in the Charlotte area.

During an interview Monday, Graham – the CEO of both the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in Charlotte and Samaritan’s Purse in Boone – said he was not targeting companies that hire or serve gay and lesbian customers. “There’s lots of businesses out there that do business with gay people,” he said. “That’s fine.”

He wants Christians to stop giving their money to businesses, such as Wells Fargo and Tiffany jewelers, “that use shareholders’ advertising dollars to promote homosexuality. … It’s promoting a godless lifestyle. … A bank should be promoting the best interest rates they’re going to give me and what they can do for me as a business. But they should not be trying to get into a moral debate and take sides.”

Graham specifically objected to a Wells Fargo TV and online ad that features a lesbian couple learning sign language for their adopted daughter. “Hello, beautiful,” the couple in the ad tell the little girl in sign language. “We’re going to be your new mommies.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living ... rylink=cpy

So, what exactly does the bible say about lesbians?

I do hope that answering Gob's question will not offend BSG - you know... have to mention the Bible 'n all that. (a jest, BSG; that's all)

Romans 1:18-32 is the answer Gob. Best to quote in context I think, 'lest someone argue that perhaps Paul was speaking of women shopping for battery operated equipment.

I wonder if the good pastor is going to boycott companies that employ sinners - he's gonna get hungry and his car will stop working. Silly man.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

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

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

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Leaving who wrote this letter aside, we have two phrases you highlight:

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones

Which could mean any unnatural/nonprocreative sexual act--just as likely heterosexual than not--perhaps oral or anal sex with men?

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

the first sentence says men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust--perhaps leading to these unnatural sexual acts with the women ("in the same way"). The second also adds that men had sex with each other. These may be two independent or not--perhaps the entire thrust of that statement is that the lust was lust for men, but Paul is unclear. He clearly knew how to say the men committed "shameful acts" (which I would think is sex) with each other, so he could have said the same about the women if that's what he wanted to state. That he did not leaves a pretty slender reed upon which to hang the conclusion that god finds lesbianism abhorrent.

Now, yes, this is a translation that may lose something in the English text, but we can only look at what's written. The 10 commandments are pretty straightforward as is Jesus' commentary on the law--this is much more murky.

That being said, if some want to boycott, fine; perhaps the rest of us should patronize those boycotted sponsors.

Well Big RR, I emphasized that the unnatural acts of the women were committed "in the same way" by men who "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men"

Now you can spin as many maybes and whatfors as you wish, but the clear context is that both men and women abandoned natural relations with the opposite sex and instead indulged in homosexual acts.

Gob asked where the Bible says something - that's where it says it. I'm not prepared to argue the rights and wrongs of same sex relationships. I am quite content that Paul puts it in the context of all other sin and that the one is no worse than the others.

BTW God doesn't hate sinners - He hates sin. I'm sure He loves lesbians, arrogant turds like me, thieves, adulterers, and so on.

Now you can spin as many maybes and whatfors as you wish, but the clear context is that both men and women abandoned natural relations with the opposite sex and instead indulged in homosexual acts.

Well I think it's much more murky than that, but concede that the translation may be responsible for some of this.

Well , no one ever claimed that the bible was factual. Isn't Romans one of those bits that gets ignored these days (on god's orders?) Or is it one of those books where only the bits that suit bigots* are used, like Leviticus?




*Meade is not a bigot.

Romans is probably the single most misquoted/taken out of context book in the bible.

Romans is perhaps the most important of all, other than the three Synoptics. Ignore? To the contrary.

I don't know if it's misquoted or misused any more or less than any other book, including non-biblical ones.

Got some facts on that there, CP?

(Thanks Gob)

A. It would be pretty hard to show any "wrath of God being revealed from heaven" directly against any individual same-sex married couples.

2. Many married (and otherwise committed) same-sex couples not only know God but also glorify him as God and give thanks to him; they only disagree with some of those who (wrongly) claim to be speaking for God. (And their thinking hasn't become futile, and their foolish hearts haven't darkened, and they are not full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.)

III. Most importantly, there is quite a difference between being inflamed with shameful lusts (on one hand), and falling (unashamedly) in love and committing to a lifelong monogamous marriage (on the other).





P.S. BTW...just who is the "they" to whom Paul repeatedly refers? (I also note that those repeated references to what "they" did are all in the past tense.)

econoline--re III, I presume it is the unrighteous/wicked people (depending on the translation) mentioned in 18.

And I agree with your first two points.

econo

As Big RR wrote, "they" refers to sinners, by which we must understand all of mankind (Eccl 7:20), including Paul himself - 1Timothy1:15:Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst)

Regarding tense - Paul is describing what has happened in the course of history and moves to the present time. "They are" (twice); "they know" and "they not only do them..."

(A) I agree - it would be pretty hard to see the wrath of God being released against any individual sinner (although stupid televangelists often do). This is not specific to homosexuals any more than it is to adulterers or any other type of sinner. To Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (along with his life and teachings) are what has revealed this difference between the righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of the people. His wrath is now known and all have been warned.

(2) Perhaps this is one of CP's misunderstandings of Romans in operation . Paul lists examples of what the unrighteous do. He's not saying that only homosexuals do all those things. Nor necessarily does any person do all of those things or even most of them.

(iii) Yes, I think the words you use express truth - there is a difference between lust and monogamous marriage. I don't accept your sub-context though.

Obviously there is a fundamental difference in how Christianity is understood. You see this in Big RR and my differences. I believe that the Bible is God's word, given to us in order to know as much as can be known about God, His purposes, His desires for us and so on. It is utterly true and righteous and the only guide to faith. For Big RR it's kind of an optional extra

That being so, I believe God loves all of mankind but insists that we must repent of and cease our sinful habits and activities. Repenting is a lot easier than the ceasing part but boasting of our continued sin is a definite no-no. I also believe that marriage is between one man and one woman - that's the Biblical view. That's Jesus' view. Left to myself, I wouldn't believe that - humanly, it's not my idea of a good rule (as to quantity!) along with many other of the teachings.

But let's not turn this into an argument about who's right and wrong about homosexual marriage - we kinda played that one out. The only purpose of posting the Romans excerpt was to answer Gob's question. (Even though he made that silly statement that no on has ever claimed the Bible was factual).

Rom 1:32b . . . they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them

meade hit upon a passage that a friend told me about long ago. reveling or glorying in your sin, without guilt for the wrongs you have done is a real "no no". as long as you regret your sin, you are still near the path, you just have to find it.

I do think that what meade said about the bible is true, tho he seems to get hung up on the exact word of god thing. it is possible that there are many layers to the word of god and that we all peel them back as we are able to understand them. a passage of the bible has shown me one thing upon first reading, then other things on subsequent readings

For Big RR it's kind of an optional extra

Optional? Perhaps; but then most models include it as part of the package.

It's not me with the apparent reading problem Meade.

Sorry? Did I write that you had a reading problem?

I thought "perhaps that's what CP meant" when I wrote that bit about televangelists.

In (2), I didn't mean that you misunderstood Romans but perhaps this was one of the things you were referring to in saying it was most misunderstood... is that it?

MajGenl.Meade wrote:But let's not turn this into an argument about who's right and wrong about homosexual marriage - we kinda played that one out.

Actually, while we're quoting Paul...I don't think anyone here has pointed out that there is a (fairly well-known) passage in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 7) which could easily be seen as approval of same-sex marriage:

1
Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,”
2
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
3
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
4
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
5
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
6
This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.
7
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8
Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

He obviously sees his own ability to remain celibate as "a particular gift from God" which not everyone has received, and sees marriage as an entirely appropriate for anyone who has not been given this particular gift. He doesn't demand that those who have not received this gift should nevertheless be required to behave as if they have received it. Therefore, a person who has a strong sexual attraction to another person, and who has not been given the gift of celibacy, should be allowed to marry "so that Satan may not tempt [them] through [their] lack of self-control." Also, "if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire."

No mention of this only applying to heterosexuals. No insinuation that homosexuals as a group are more likely to have received the same "particular gift from God" as he, Paul, has received. The mention of homosexual acts in Romans, and the warning against such behavior, seems to apply only to "wicked" "sinful" "godless" people who have already been behaving in such a way as to bring down the wrath of God--not those who want to get married as a God-given alternative to sin.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:But let's not turn this into an argument about who's right and wrong about homosexual marriage - we kinda played that one out.

Actually, while we're quoting Paul...I don't think anyone here has pointed out that there is a (fairly well-known) passage in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 7) which could easily be seen as approval of same-sex marriage:

1
Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,”
2
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
3
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
4
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
5
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
6
This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.
7
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8
Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

Paul obviously sees his own ability to remain celibate as "a particular gift from God" which not everyone has received, and sees marriage as an entirely appropriate for anyone who has not been given this particular gift. He doesn't demand that those who have not received this gift should nevertheless be required to behave as if they have received it. Therefore, a person who has a strong sexual attraction to another person, and who has not been given the gift of celibacy, should be allowed to marry "so that Satan may not tempt [them] through [their] lack of self-control." Also, "if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire."

No mention of this only applying to heterosexuals. No insinuation that homosexuals as a group are more likely to have received the same "particular gift from God" as he, Paul, has received. The mention of homosexual acts in Romans, and the warning against such behavior, seems to apply only to "wicked" "sinful" "godless" people who have already been behaving in such a way as to bring down the wrath of God (the lustful behavior is the effect rather than the cause of wickedness/godlessness)--NOT those who actually want to get married as a God-given alternative to sin.

No mention of this only applying to heterosexuals.

Well, it seems to me that all those references to "his and "her" and "husband" and "wife" and "man" and "woman" are a pretty good indication...

Of course LJ is 100% correct. Only by an absolute distortion of language (as is being done with great success these days) can "husband" somehow mean either a man or a woman and "wife" likewise.

Paul's Corinthians letter changes nothing in Romans.

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things'. I'm sure we're all familiar with Humpty Dumpty's answer.

. Only by an absolute distortion of language (as is being done with great success these days) can "husband" somehow mean either a man or a woman and "wife" likewise.

I don't necessarily buy that; the wife is the female(s) in a marriage, the husband(s) the male. Traditionally, marriage was viewed as the union of a husband and wife, but it doesn't take all that much of a distortion to say that a nontraditional marriage may have two wives or husbands (indeed as I recall, wife derives from an old English word for woman and husband derives from OE for the male head f the household--marriage is not necessarily a requirement as originally used; indeed the term midwife retains this use of the term "wife" for woman ( a midwife is literally someone who is "with women" (mit wife) and treats them for women's ailments/condition including childbirth--marriage is not even part of the definition or etymology). Or that a child may have two mothers or fathers for that matter.

But Jim also pointed to the use of gender specific pronouns (his, her) and nouns (man, woman) as they are used in the quoted text.