Heard these ideas somewhere before...

[Gob]

A North Carolina group said it plans to hold a public protest on Sunday to denounce a Baptist minister's anti-gay and lesbian sermon that has drawn hundreds of thousands of views on the Internet.

Pastor Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina told his congregation during a May 13 sermon that the Bible and God opposed homosexuality and that gay and lesbian people should be put in concentration camps.

"Build a great big large fence 50 or 100 miles long," Worley said according to the video posted on YouTube. "Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. Have that fence electrified so they can't get out. You know what, in a few years, they'll die out. You know why? They can't reproduce."

The Anti-Defamation League, which fights hatred, prejudice and bigotry, condemned Worley's statements.

"Pastor Worley's videotaped remarks are deplorable, inexcusable and incompatible with the tenets of his faith," said David Freidman, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in Washington, D.C. "Pastor Worley owes the LGBT community and the people of Maiden, North Carolina a swift and unequivocal apology."

Phone calls to the church for comment from Worley were not returned.

Christopher Brook, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, said the church had posted the entire sermon on its website for a few days, and the Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate had grabbed the clip and posted it on YouTube. The clip had been viewed 689,000 times by Thursday.

[dales]

Jesus wept.

[Econoline]

BTW, the supposed prohibition of homosexuality in the OT mentions only men and makes NO mention whatsoever of women or lesbian sex.

P.S. How about a concentration camp for those who consume pork? (Oh wait, that would be the American South...)

[Grim Reaper]

If homosexuals can't reproduce in the first place, how does this guy figure they keep popping up as time goes by?

[Crackpot]

How do they reproduce then?

[Scooter]

If homosexuals can't reproduce in the first place, how does this guy figure they keep popping up as time goes by?

We recruit, dontcha know? Thousands of straight teenagers see their gay peers being continually harassed, belittled and beaten up for who they are, and they think "yeah, that's EXACTLY how I want my life to be" and head right over to their local LGBT recruiting office to sign up.

[MajGenl.Meade]

BTW, the supposed prohibition of homosexuality in the OT mentions only men and makes NO mention whatsoever of women or lesbian sex.

I would protest outside that church too - what the minister said is foul and utterly non-Biblical. The man is clearly not a Christian but an unbeliever (as well as an unreader and unsaved)

But to help you Econo (jus' the faks ma'am; jus' the faks):

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Some have interpreted "due penalty" as a reference to HIV but I think not. In context it's far more likely Paul was speaking of separation from God in common with all us sinners but in particular the condition of those who deny God and worship created things. Such sinners have chosen their own penalty is what he's saying

Meade

[rubato]

How do they reproduce then?

God implanted in the human genome sequences which would appear as a result of the process of genetic shuffling in a large percentage of humans as being homosexual.

Or that is what you have to believe if you believe in special creation.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not really. One does have to believe that all aspects of nature were corrupted by man's disobedience and separation from God. One can also dismiss genetic arguments entirely as one would do for any other sin although I think that more problematic than the first.

Delete "God implanted" from your sentence and you have what unbelievers prefer to believe. Presumably random determinism in some form?

[rubato]

Eye, skin, hair color, and sexual orientation are determined genetically.

Only superstitious people believe that any of them are a reason for persecution and prejudice.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well at least you agree with God on that.

[Big RR]

At least the modern understanding of god by many people. the biblical god, old and new testament, was quite tolerant, if not promoting of the enslavement of "others", usually conquered by god's people (indeed, Paul describes in detail what may and may not be done with slaves, as do many old testament writings), and the understanding of god and god's will has been used to justify chattel slavery and apartheid as part of the white man's burden, even in the 20th century. and let's not even look at mixing of the races, which some religious groups see as completely contrary to the will of god.

And FWIW, I think many of those who oppose gay marriages and/or otherwise discriminate against gays would argue that god does not create gay people, that these are people who freely choose to flout god's will as an excuse for their behavior.

[Scooter]

Across language families and throughout history, "right" has been imbued with connotations of goodness, correctness, justice, etc. while "left" was associated with evil, awkwardness, ill fortune, etc. The Bible itself has no shortage of examples of the use of right/left to mean good/evil. Romans thought it sounded catchy, and so gave sinistra, the Latin word for left, the additional meanings of evil, unlucky. In English, left comes from the Old English for weak, idle, useless, while right is from the Old English riht, meaning good, proper, fair, just. And both the English words and their Latin equivalents are used in English today to convey those very meanings. A person who is correct is "right", a person who is evil or suspicious is "sinister". Someone who is skilled with his/her hands has "dexterity", while someone who dances poorly has "two left feet". Someone who is sane is said to be in his/her "right mind", while a compliment that is insincere because it is intended to express a criticism is called "left-handed." And on and on and on, and almost all languages have their own examples.

Not surprising, then, that medieval Europeans believed left-handedness to be a sign of demon possession. Not surprising that, even when such idiocy fell out of favour, left-handed children were tortured mercilessly until well into the latter part of the last century, subjected to brutal "conversion therapies" which, while in a minority of cases may have been succeeded in teaching them to write sloppily with the right hand, certainly never rid them of their left-handedness. Today it is just accepted as one more harmless variation, with the science leaning towards some combination of genetic and environmental (before and during birth) influences.

Of course, people who believed that left-handers were demon-possessed would not have cared about that, because the devil could have used the "corrupted" human genome as easily as any other method to bring about a demonic possession. In their eyes, a genetic cause doesn't redeem left-handedness any more than it would for any other form of demon possession brought about by satanic genetic alterations

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's cool. When I played 'Kingmaker' via a gamesmaster, my faction name was "The Bend Sinister" and man, was I evil. I let some dude's forces into one of my cities and then wouldn't let him leave - holding him there until a 'plague' card turned up and he was wiped out.

And yes, homosexuals choose to either do or not do what they do. Just as I do. They know it's wrong and they do it anyway.
Meade

[Gob]

And yes, homosexuals choose to either do or not do what they do. Just as I do. They know it's wrong and they do it anyway.
Meade

"Wrong" in your eyes, not in theirs or those of anyone else who does not take their moral compass from superstition.

[Scooter]

They don't agree that it's wrong. There is a difference.

I suppose left-handed people could have chosen never to write...

[rubato]

Well at least you agree with God on that.

But you do not.

You believe that homosexuals should be persecuted.

Even though your god made them that way.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

rubato:

(a) no one, homosexual or otherwise, should be persecuted.

(2) God didn't "make them that way" - or perhaps you believe that? - any more than he made people thieves, adulterers, murderers, liars, blasphemers and so on. See if you can understand the actual belief (even while not agreeing with it): God created all things. Man corrupted all things, including his own nature. That the second is a foreseen (by God) consequence of the first is not disputed.

Scooter - yes you are correct. They don't agree. They know it but choose not to know it just as any unbeliever knows God but chooses not to do so.

Gob - no, the moral compass exists as an absolute and is not subject to arbitrary whims of humans. We might disagree as to the form of the absolute. My basis is not superstition but facts and beliefs supported by reason and reality.

In your view (widely shared), my opinions on morality should logically carry the same value as your own. But if you have numbers on your side, that makes my view (and any other that disagrees with yours) "wrong". I understand relative morality.

Meade

[Gob]

Not true Meade. My belief comes from internal reasoning and personal experience. Your views should carry the same value as mine, but, and I stand to be proven wrong, there is an inherent belief within those who condemn homosexuals on religious grounds, that their belief has more moral authority as they believe it comes from god(s). Therefore they have the right to say that homosexuals are "wrong", and that they (in some belief systems) should be /will be punished. Not only that, but some (not all) believe that this belief of theirs gives them moral authority to condemn, persecute, vilify and what to an outsider seems, take an overly obsessive view of gay sex lives.

Can I just add at this point, that I respect you, personally, as a man of belief.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well it's quite reciprocated, you can be sure. Not sure what the "not true" referred to exactly.... as I kind of read your reply above as rather confirming of what I wrote - while not agreeing with my final (moral) conclusions of course. We both claim internal reasoning and personal experience, at the least - while I add external evidence and reasoning as well.

I believe you are quite right that some people condemn, persecute, vilify and so on - they are wrong to do so, according to the Bible. The sewer rats of Westboro come to mind. They fail to understand that God loves all, that Christ died for all, and that all are equally offenders against God. For some reason, they conclude that homosexuality in someone else is somehow "worse" or 'more sinful' than their own lying, stealing, cheating, adulterous, divorce embracing (etc ad nauseam) lives.

Of course such behaviour is by no means restricted to Christians. The leader of the SA 'Traditional Council' recently came out with a diatribe against homosexuals very much as you describe on the grounds that it was an offense to traditional black African values. And the same behaviour is found wherever any group considers itself to be superior to another - whether its traditional values, Christian or other religious readings or just plain secular bullying.

Many Christian views (traditional Biblical reformed) include the concept of eternal punishment for unrepentant sinners. Some do not. Some are annihilationist - sinners will be voted off the island and are simply vanished in an Argentinian fashion. Some are universalists - God has been pissing us around all this time but in the end He's just going to chuckle and pat all on the head and let everyone in. Some Christians are even relativists - yes, God didn't like this and that sin ages ago but He's grown up a bit since then and these days He takes a toke or two himself and just winks at what used to be transgression. So there are many (and other) views.

Homosexuals of course are not "wrong" per se - or at least no wronger than I am. God hates sin - not the sinner. It is false therefore for any Christian (or anyone else) to say that "homosexuals should be punished" if that refers to some human activity on this earth. Punishment is God's prerogative.

I do not think that my beliefs have more moral authority - I could be wrong in believing x or y. I think that God's revelation of himself is the Bible and that God (and the Bible) carry the absolute truth and only moral authority. I could be wrong in how I understand something in that.

I think that God's word is clear in saying that homosexuality is an offense against Him. It is my prayer that all sinners including myself will be enabled to renounce sin, to choose to follow Jesus who himself followed unaltered scripture and who accepts all people, no matter what their past errors have been.

Churches that reject the plain meaning of the Bible, whether that's Westboro with its vileness or the Anglican church (and others) ordaining actively homosexual clergy, are rejecting the scriptures that Jesus taught and clarified. Their choice.

Meade

PS I have before posted about my times in GEAR and association with LIGHT in Cleveland. This doesn't make me correct - just not a total rejectionist of people who happen to be different.