Hey Rachael---Bring on your friend --Bapist Bishop--can't remember his name--distinguished, educated man of God::Would be a compliment to our president and the inaugeration!!

Why is disagreement equated with hate? I disagree with homosexualty, abortion, and other life decisions. But I don't hate.

Are you being serious? What that man said was disgusting and bigoted.

If I love someone, treat them with kindness and respect AND disagree with their lifestyle, is that hate?

Being gay is not a "lifestyle" - It is who they are, just like being heterosexual is not a "lifestyle" for you (I assume you are Hetero). The pastor does not just "disagree with their lifestyle"...He uses his pulpit to denegrate their true nature, and pretends that he is the arbiter of who is a sinner and who is not.

Accepting someone for who they are is at the very core of love. To borrow a famous phrase " I do not think it means what you think it means"

"Who you are is wrong and only Jesus can fix you" is neither kind nor respectful.

Oh, and "we need to fight your 'agenda' b/c you don't deserve rights (that I have)," isn't either.

Relevant - Would it be hate if I said I loved people of color, treat them with kindness and respect AND disagree with their life choice to not bleach their skin to be normal like me?

largenose, a quick question: Let's say that someone's true nature (similar to your belief with homosexuality) is to "disagree with homosexuality." It is natuaral and innate in them. Is it wrong for you to denegrate their beliefs? Or wrong for you tell them that their nature to "disagree with homosexuality" is wrong?

MechTrek, I believe the disagreement we have is that if someone is a Christian they must admit that "they are wrong and only Jesus can fix it"... this is not a new thing and pertains to everyone, not just someone who is homosexual.

Bull@!$%#. Giglio was not talking about only xtian homos, he was talking about all of them, and you know it. Go troll somewhere else.

Um, whatever.. If you ask me, seeking a benediction at an inauguration is about as heretical as it gets, the forest from the trees ladies.. the forest from the trees.

Irrelevant - Get back to us when you can tell the difference between fact and opinion.

Relevant - while everyone has a right to not "accept" homosexuality - this man is a Pastor (a man of G-d) and preaching intolerance against "others" who don't live as you do isn't denigrating to the man, but to the fact that he's supposedly a "man of G-d" means that's he preaching hate and intolerance. As John Doe private citizen he has every right to feel the way that he feels, as a Pastor who supposedly believes in "the word of G-d" and preaches it to people that "homosexuality is: a) a "lifestyle" as in a "choice" people make, b) that "bringing them to Jesus" is the only way to love them, and c) implies that somehow "G-d doesn't love homosexuals" too - is to put himself as the arbiter of all that "G-d has made" and that's not cool.

See, I too read the "bible/torah/quoran/vedas - and a whole lot more - and while I see a whole lot of passages about "love/loving others/how to treat others/ et. al - I don't believe that it's my place to "judge" others that don't live as I do or believe what I believe, or love someone of the opposite sex - it's not my place, and frankly - if the good "Lord" (whatever your name is that you call it) wanted me to "judge" they wouldn't have written "Judge NOT lest ye be judged....

@Relevant...when one religious group or individual supports the use of the coercive power of the government to force me to act as they wish me to, that is hatred.

Sign on a local church (Fundamentalist, no less): "We are called to be witnesses, not lawyers or judges."

Therein lies the problem. Reverend Giglio is not satisfied with being a witness; he also wants to be a lawyer and a judge.

I respect the right of Christians to bear witness i.e. tell me that "Being gay is a sin, and you should cease what you're doing and accept Jesus Christ." I ask Christians to respect my right to say "No, thank you." without constant pestering me, my parents, my siblings, my friends, and society in general with this message. "No" means exactly that:"No". I understand fully the implication of my actions if the Christians are right, but I have faith that my religion's beliefs are correct, so I'm not much concerned about it.

What I do not accept are those Christians who think that God has given them the power to become "lawyers and judges". These misguided people wish to have the right to manipulate public opinion against us, and to use the coercive power of government to harass, restrict, and disturb us.

I understand that some people feel that their freedom of religion is threatened by laws designed to protect gays and lesbians from unjust discrimination. That is in my opinion an irrational fear. As a former Christian, I was taught to understand that my sins were the responsibility of me and me alone, as was the decision whether or not to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. I was taught to treat every person with courtesy and respect, whether they were "just like me" or not. After all, isn't that what Jesus did? Didn't he hang out with the sinners, outcasts, and unliked people? Didn't He do that in spite of the disagreement of the "powers that be" of that time? Did he ever preach a "sinner by association" message? I can't find where He did.

The love referred to by right wing Christians today is a very conditional love. When their faith returns to the "unconditional love" concept that was the essence of Jesus' message, the world will be a better place.

So mote it be.

Preface to my next comment with this: I do NOT believe murder and homosexuality are the same.

largenose, one more quick question taking it a bit farther... If we find out that Adam Lanza (who committed all the murders in Conn.) had a natur

largenose, one more quick question taking it a bit farther... If we find out that Adam Lanza (who committed all the murders in Conn.) had a natural mental illness. Maybe his was insane or didn't fully understand what he was doing. Does that make what he did "good" or something to be celebrated? Of course not! Just because something is natural, innate or engrained in a human, does not mean that it is good. It does not justify the outcome.

Mechtrek, there must have been a missunderstanding. I believe that as a Christian, somone must admit (whether hetero or homosexual) that they need Jesus to fix them... to chip away at the sins in them.

FireDiva,

Have you ever voted in an election? If the side you voted for won the election, do you feel as though you have forced your beliefs on the minority?

I agree completely with you that I am not meant to be a lawyer or judge. Where I disagree is that Christians are meant to be "truth-tellers" (as shown all throughout the Bible).

I disagree with the lifestyle choice of anyone who eats shrimp.

Shrimp are an abomination. Leviticus 11:10. People are not born with the want of shrimp, they choose to eat it, therefore they are evil. They can also choose not to eat shrimp, whereupon they will be saved.

From my pulpit I shall sow my anti-shrimp sermons upon the congregation, that they will lose eternal life upon eating shrimp. I will gain a weekly national radio show to spread my shrimpless message across the nation, maybe a half hour spot on Religious TV even, which will gain me many shrimp-free followers and lots of donations for No Shrimp rallys, tent revivals, maybe even donations to buy a few politicans for anti-shrimp legislation.

We will all be happier people without the evil influence of shrimp-eaters in our midst and live in harmony and love as our creator planned (though why he put shrimp on the earth is beyond me...).

Amen.

Great. Thanks a lot, NMC - Now I'm hungry for sin.

NeedMoreCoffee,

The verse you quoted was from what many Christians believe is part of the old covenant. Paul talks about about homosexuality in 1 Timothy 1:10, including it with new covenant sins. Unfortunately, this old/new covenant talk is part of a bigger discussion! That being said, I understand if people disagree with the Bible, but it is clearly shown as a sin.

Please note, I do believe God loves the sinner and hates the sin.

irrelevant, just shut up. everything you say is based on a book that has been written and rewritten for more than a thousand years by people who want nothing more than to control other people through fear and intimidation and have a cushy job with no heavy lifting. almost anything quoted from your book can be refuted by quoting from some other passage in the same book.

it's all about control.

I believe that as a Christian, somone must admit (whether hetero or homosexual) that they need Jesus to fix them

Please then, produce evidence that the divorce, adultery, and fornication "agendas" are as aggressively opposed as the "homosexual agenda", and that fundgelicals are working just as hard to take away the rights of divorcees, adulterers, and fornicators as they are to deny rights to gays.

You can't, b/c they aren't.

I recall something about removing the beam from your own eye first. Hypocrites. Go clean your own house.

Relevant268,

I get you, I do. And I choose not to argue with you. You and I both have untenable positions. You cannot prove there is a god and I cannot prove there isn't. I want you to be happy, and if faith makes you happy, I would be remiss in attempting to dissuade you.

There is an individual below I have taken issue with regarding his post, but it was his post, not his faith, that I rebutted.

Peace, friend.

relevant, this man Giglio, lies to people. As others have said, show the evidence for all of the simply stupid things this man said about "conspiracies".

and telling someone you love them but gosh darn, they'll go to eternal torture for not obeying you is just silly. It's also silly that Christians are so very sure that they have the "right" answer about what their god wants, but not a single one of you can show that this god merely exists, much less show that it agrees with you and not the next one down the road that has completely different magic god-truths than you do.

Giglio can believe whatever miserable bigotted nonsense he wants, he sure han't recanted it. But he must take responsiblity and take the consequences for being someone who belongs back in the dark ages.

Oh, I get it, the New Covenant (of Socially Inept Foolishness..). I'll call Jesus when I need a tire rotation, I'll call Giggles here when I want to hate myself (a little more than I already may) and I'll once again thank the stars for the dedication and hard work of Bart Ehrman!

MechTrek,

I cannot deny the harm that divorce, adultery, and fornication have had on the world. My own opinion is that they have caused more damage than homosexuality ever has... That being said, a major difference I see is that homosexuality has gone from being accepted to celebrated. An example, this year the Pentagon held their first-ever gay pride event. This is not the case for divorce, adultery and fornication. Again, they are accepted and but not (in almost all cases) celebrated.

Celebrated? Get back to me when gay kids are no longer being bullied into suicide.

Sorry I missed your comment Richard Johnson 9! Question: Do you believe that certain skin colors are sinful? I have never seen that in the Bible, I'm confused.

Mechtrek,

It is awful that people are being bullied because of their sexuality, and I believe that that should be addressed aggressively. The main thought I was trying to convey is that overall American culture has been celebrating homosexuality more and more. In contrast, people with differing opinions (Bible-believers as a minority), have begun to be hated. Just in this post alone Christians or myself have been called a bigot, hypocrite, irrelevant, disgusting, hateful, talking BS, socially inept fool, and even a troll! Never heard that one before!

All this to say that I have multiple homosexual close family members, and I love them; would never even think about hurting or judging them. I disagree with their relationships and would tell them the truth in love. I just hope that even though people may disagree, that they see a reasonable faith and do not respond in the same harshness they condemn.

I believe that as a Christian

Which kind of Christian? There isn't one single Christian position on LGBT issues, and there are plenty of individual churches and denominations that disagree with yours. See this for a short list, and this for a more comprehensive list.

It is awful that people are being bullied because of their sexuality, and I believe that that should be addressed aggressively.

You don't actually believe that. If you did, you wouldn't be contributing to the social attitudes that encourage bullying with your "telling the truth in love."

People are calling you a bigot b/c your views are bigoted. "Telling the truth in love" instead of waving a "GOD HATES FAGS" sign around doesn't make the core message any different. No amount of pretty words can cover up the message of hate. Stop fooling yourself that not openly wanting gays dead means you're one of the good guys. You're not.

MeddlingMonk,

That is a very good question. You're correct in saying that some denominations have different positions on LGBT issues. What I have often found as the core disagreement is Biblical inerrancy. So, is the Bible the perfect Word of God and is it totally applicable to people today? I would answer yes to both of those questions, but others may not.

The idea of inerrancy that you hold to is a fairly new one. Just a little more than a century old. Since Christianity is about 2,000 years old, novel ideas like yours are hardly defining characteristics.

Mechtrek,

Well, I believe this is where our conversation has hit a wall. I have no desire to raise signs in protest to homosexuals and do not want them dead... But how would you know that? I wouldn't expect you to know that because you don't know me.

Ephesians 2 says "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world... among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -by grace you have been saved-"

What a beautiful message! I believe that to be true love and freedom!

MeddlingMonk,

I have researched the the belief of Biblical inerrancy going back thousands of years with the Jews and the Torah. Where did you find information detailing Biblical inerrancy as new?

The inerrancy I am talking about is directly linked to the belief that the Bible is "divinely inspired" and that it is exactly as God wants. Another word that takes inerrancy a little deeper is "infallible." Look it up! Good questions though.

Relevant

You obviously no knowing about Judaism. Here's something for you about the Jews and the inerrancy of the Torah:

http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7308/is-there-torah-inerrancy

Do a little research sometime it'll make you seem less dense.

MariaBlumberg

I have seen that site before, it is the very first search that comes up in the Google Search. That being said, dig a little deeper and you will see that believing the Torah is inerrant was a widespread belief. Thats not to say all Jews believed that.

Let me know what you find, I'd like to see more, thanks.

Relevant, you are clearly a very superficial person. That is painfully obvious. You speak of your 'research', yet you conflate such unrelated concepts as inspiration and inerrancy. The one has nothing to do with the other.

As a practical matter, it is entirely possible (and historically the norm) to regard biblical texts as divinely inspired and authoritative in religious matters without holding to inerrancy. For example, the traditional Catholic approach is to regard biblical texts as having four "senses": literal, allegorical, moral and anagogic. Inerrancy is strictly speaking not necessary for any one of those senses, not even for the literal. This fourfold approach has been characteristic of Catholic biblical interpretation for pretty much ever.

If you had any real knowledge of these matters, you would know that the doctrine of inerrancy arose in the latter part of the 19th century as part of a highly conservative Christian reaction to a variety of developments including (but not limited to) higher (or historical) textual criticism. As higher criticism seeks, in part, to place texts in their historical contexts, and as this was and is seen (by some) as a threat to the sanctity of biblical texts, it has been a goal of fundamentalists to wrest the texts from any historical context whatsoever as a means of preserving that sanctity.

Also, you are being suicidally stupid if you think you can argue with Maria about Judaism. You are seriously out of your class, mate.

Meddlingmonk,

I'm just noting that Maria's research just "happened" to be the very first search on google on a comment section, not a published work. To argue that as the basis for a point is not very firm. I have family members of the Jewish faith, and have discussed this the topic of inerrancy multiple times.

Where are you finding that the belief in inerrancy is a newer belief? I asked you for information before, and have not recieved a solid source. While the discussion of a doctrine of inerrancy is somewhat new, this belief has been implicit in the high view of inspiration for a long time. To name a few, Clement, Gregory Nazianzus, Justin Martyr, Iraeneus, and Luther held to this belief.

You are just trolling now. The fact that Maria's item just happens to be the first hit on Google does not mean that is the reason she picked it. As for where I get the idea that your beliefs on inerrancy are newish, I get it from my knowledge of historical religious developments. I have an education, therefore I know things. You could be informed if you just made the effort, instead of expecting people to spoon-feed you knowledge. Of course, you don't really expect anyone to do that. Like I said, you are just trolling, and deflecting criticism by demanding sources you will never bother to look at or even acknowledge is a classic trolling technique. So, bugger off.

MeddlingMonk,

I think it is quite ironic, that you say that I am trolling.

You're correct in saying that just because Maria's argument stemmed from the first google-search response, does not mean that it's incorrect. I'm just attempting to make the conversation less dense (as she had stated earlier).

Here's a useful referenced-article: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1126&var3=main

Hopefully, you don't mind me spoon-feeding you... When you find an likewise referenced article, please send it my way. I mean that. I want to grow in my knowledge of this issue, as I hope that you're looking to do the same.

Relevant

Although your search turned up the article I posted first, it was not the first one that came up when I searched. That was a Wkipedia article. I avoid Wikipedia when ever possible. I used the article that came with most reliable adress. I've done years of research in academic libraries and the Internet so I do know how to select these things. I am very careful how I source things. I am really insulted that you have suggested otherwise.

There is a difference between the concept of inerrancy and accuracy with the Torah. A Torah must be transcribed by hand without any mistakes. If a mistake is made then whole scroll must be destroyed. However when it come to interpret what is written that's a whole different thing. That's what the Talmud and the Mishnah are about. Centuries of interpretation (and arguing) by rabbis over the meaning of Torah.

Or Bill Maher. . .

Thank you. The Constitution specifies that there is no religious test for any elected official and that the government cannot establish any specific religion in preference of others. Thus, not only is it inappropriate for a benediction to be performed at the inauguration, but the President should be putting his hand on a copy of the Constitution, not a bible.

Joseph, I am totally with you on this! Take religion out of the Inauguration totally! It is not pertinent and it is certainly not Democratic (except to other Christians!)!

Kathy, because regardless of how ugly and muddied our political landscape has come to be, 84% of the US population say they believe in a loving merciful god.

I smell an inauguration being picketed by angry zombie zealots.

Obama is a Christian. He will be sworn in on a stack of Bibles. He has a right to A) have a benediction and B) have whomever he wants do it.

I believe he is intelligent enough to decide whether the person he picks reflects opinions he wants reflected... but that he may not have heard this msg that the pastor had given.

I believe in Christ and am Christian. However, I disagree with this pastor (and my own church's pastor) in regard to what they say the Bible says. My pastor (and others) try all the time to say that "the Bible said it, so that's it" when in fact, they can't even see that they pick and choose which parts they want that to pertain to.

If I believed ALL of the Bible (for which old white men of property chose the various gospels, etc) then 1) I'd believe in slavery; 2) I'd believe women have no place in government or in schools teaching men anything and 3) that men should have multiple wives, just to name a few items from the Bible.

I believe God (whomever you think that is) will someday judge our actions. I'll let him/her/it take care of what others have done, including my own actions.

Here's what the Bible says, "Be ye kind, one to another. Tenderhearted, forgiving one another. Even as God for Christ's sake, has forgiven you." -Ephesians 4:32

"You shall love your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your might. This is the first and Great Commandment, and the second is like unto it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself." THAT'S what Jesus said we should do. Live this, and everything else kinda falls into place.

I agree.

And I hope that the feelings of President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense have "evolved" over the years.

The way Obama was raked over the coals regarding Rev. Wright's old sermons?

If there really aren't two sets of rules...this needn't be made into yet another example of the left treating the right with kid gloves while the right treats the left with boxing gloves.

Precedence has been firmly set on this issue. By the right.

Perhaps 'teh gay' community could declare an amnesty for things said more than 12 years ago. This older white male has had his perspectives evolve considerably over the last 12 years and would not want to be held accountable until eternity for things said in the relatively distant past!

Do we know if this is what the Pastor feels today?

I think we can reasonably infer that he does. In his statement explaining with withdrawal, Giglio wrote "Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration."

The length of time between the sermon causing his problems and today could only be relevant if his thinking on the subject had substantially changed in the meantime. If it had, then he could have used the erupting controversy as an opportunity to explain his new views and how he had arrived at them. (See this concerning Cory Booker on how that it's done.) But he did nothing of the sort. Instead, he chose to find fault with the people who had the nerve to take notice of his old pronouncements and hold him accountable for them. He could have taken responsibility for his old comments. Instead, he tried to shift the blame to others. He wouldn't be so defensive if he had actually changed his position.

And, SOV, if Giglio wants forgiveness he first must repent. Those are the rules.

I had this discussion with my brother over the holidays-- he insisted that he "just don't agree with it and there ain't nothin' you can say that's gonna change my mind about it!"

"Okay, bro-- so you're saying you're a bigot."

Silence. Deep thought. "Well, ummm..." and though we dropped the subject (there was much drinking and catching up to do). I know now at least he recognizes it as bigotry... and doesn't like what that says about him.

Hey, he's my much loved big brother, I'll love him even if he stays a bigot-- but I think now that he's thinking, he'll come down on the side of humanity.

Agree, Laer. Moreover, to claim victimization, as Ben Ditzel does down on comment #20, because someone isn't genuflecting at the foot of his chosen religion.

Obama's long professed being a Christian, it's so galling to listen to other so-called Christians deny him like they're god themselves.

If you must hate, hate the behavior, not the person. I try to avoid hating altogether, since it is a terrible energy suck in one's life.

redneck girl, if it's too draining you're probably doing it wrong.

my old man taught me not to hate a group, not because it's bigotry or stupid or anything like that, but because it's inefficient. he said "hate the one SOB that did you dirty, that way the hate just might get something done. if you hate a whole group it just spreads too thin and accomplishes nothing." good old Dad, i miss his wisdom.

The thing is, red, being gay (or any variety of queer, for that matter) isn't about what you do, it's about who you are. It's a persistent state of being that endures intact through any kind of activity or inactivity. Same as being straight, really.

It's not as if you are straight only while engaged in sexual intercourse with a cisgendered person of the opposite biological sex. Instead, you are straight all the freaking time. Sucks to be you, but you're stuck with yourself regardless. You are who you are, not what you do.

Using the term "Jesus Freaks" is as hateful as any other bigoted language. Yes, you have your free speech rights, but don't think your words are any less harsh when you use "labels" that denigrate.

redneck girl, sometimes speech is meant to denigrate. sometimes it is justified too.

No, it really isn't. There are plenty of individual churches in this country and several denominations which are reasonably good, to a variety of degrees, on LGBT issues. What is strange is how good a job the religious right has done in conning people, including you, that theirs is the only game in town.

Ecclesiastical shades of gray. We should forgive Rev. Warren for these sermons because he's overall a good person. Seems fair.

What is not fair is Rev. Warren is not obligated as a spiritual leader to turn around and extend "forgivness" to a gay man/woman who is overall a good person. The difference being is Rev. Warren is doing God's work.

The Book Rev. Warren used to base those sermons upon has across the ages permitted the on-going segregation of human beings into either godly or socially outcast subsets without any sliding scale based on personal goodness. How can we use such a scale for one person but not another?

Respectfully.

NMC, i don't think there are, or should be, any gays out there who care if he "forgives" them or not. it's nobody's place to "forgive" anybody for anything that is just their natural way and hurts nobody. it might be appropriate for that idiot pastor to ask forgiveness from all the gays he has maligned though.

the book he uses is a work of man. i know that many say it's "revealed word" and therefore error-free but then why are there so many versions or can't the revealer make up it's mind?

This is the 21st century, we don't need to seek the favor of supernatural deities

FTW!

Again, your opinion to think of God as a supernatural deity. Perhaps the "god particle" will make a liar out of you, LOL. I am Christian but that doesn't mean I think God is an old white dude with a beard sitting up on some throne in the sky. I think the Bible puts morality into the terms of its time... which doesn't conflict with my belief that a) no one knows the length of God's "day"; 2) DNA is a miracle; and 3) God exists and is everywhere...

One of my favorite musicians said it nicely (to a great tune, also):

ORIGIN OF SPECIES

Well, Eve told Adam
Snakes? I've had 'em!
Let's get outta here!
Go raise this family someplace outta town.

They left the garden just in time
With the landlord cussin' right behind.
They headed East,
and they finally settled down.

One thing led to another:
A bunch of sons,
One killed his brother
And they kicked him out with nothin' but his clothes.

And the human race survived
'Cause all those brothers found wives
But where they came from
Ain't nobody knows.

Then came the flood
Go figure...
Just like New Orleans only bigger.
No one who couldn't swim would make it through.

The lucky ones were on a boat
Think "circus"
And then make it float
I hope nobody pulls the plug on you!

How they fed that crowd is a mystery.
It ain't down in the history,
but it's a cinch they didn't
live on cakes and jam.

Lions don't eat cabbage
And in spite of that old adage,
I ain't never seen one
Lie down with a lamb.

Well, Charlie Darwin looked so far
Into the way things are.
He caught a glimpse of God's
unfolding plan.

God said: "I'll make some DNA"
They can use it any way they want
From paramecium
Right up to man."

"They'll have sex
And mix up sections of their code
They'll have mutations...
The whole thing works like clockwork over time."

"I'll just sit back in the shade
While everyone gets laid.
That's what I call
Intelligent design."

Yeah, you and your cat named Felix,
Both wrapped up in that double helix,
Is what we call
Intelligent design.

redneck girl, hi it's me, your scold again. DNA requires no miracle to exist. it is a natural consequence of the combination of the laws of chemistry, physics and probability with an entire ocean full of primordial soup and some quite natural energy sources. you might think that it is too complex to have "just happened" but that would mean that you have no concept of how big an ocean is and how many random combinations can happen in that ocean in a half-billion years.

No! The only true evil is people who have names that sound like food.

Especially before lunch.

/s/

And I am sure you would never consider yourself part of the problem...

I have no answer to that because it has no relevance to my points. The Word of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. It's not a matter of who is righteous or self-righteous.. It is a matter of who has been saved by Christ and the change of heart when one is.

"We will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans except conservative Bible believing Christians." Come on. There's a church on every block that doesn't have to pay taxes and a pedophile in every diocese that doesn't have to go to jail and prayers open and close just about every government function there is and in every baseball game they sing "God Bless America" and it just goes on and on and on. Christians get every single deference possible and yet they complain incessantly about how they get nothing. It's absurd. Try being an atheist, we get constant and complete disrespect by not only government but also businesses and other institutions. Religion is so ingrained into our culture you can't even see how offensive it is. But you don't hear us bitching about it all the damn time.

When Bum Ditzel says "Tolerance is impossible...", I think he has laid the basis for either ignoring this blithering fool or performing a verbal assault upon his intolerance. When he lumps "lying, homosexuality, murder, divorce..." together, he says that he is a fool with a profound lack of discernment and nuance.

I don't think being Christian - through belief in Christ's sacrifice to redeem us - changes one's sexual orientation anymore than it changes your skin color or gender or whatever.

Ben Ditzel @20.2.

Respectfully...no relevance to your points?

Love the sinner but hate the sin...that can't be done without people getting ostracized by a flawed human society basing itself on any inflexible religious platform.

Would you like to be ostracized? No one is free from sin, no one. Even you. Have you ever wondered why you aren't a social pariah for those little sins you do? Is being homosexual somehow worse and therefore deserving of a more strict handling by religious leadership than those little sins you do?

All sin is the same in the eyes of God, your tiny sins are just the same to God as his aversion to homosexuality, the difference is that in churches all the across the nation, few preach so adamantly against particular kinds of "harmless" sins like the ones you commit. They've become, against your post, tolerated. That is not the case for the gay community.

Your post also stood in judgement of our president's Christian faith, our president whom God appointed (if you read all parts of your bible and not just select bits). If you are allowed to gently skirt the Biblical rules as needed, why aren't others allowed?

So you see, the question I posed to you is relevant.

has nobody here seen Elmer Gantry?

FP

The movie was Gigolo not Giglio. And I agree a terrible movie.

so, when do you start accommodating me and the millions like me?

We're all like Roger Rabbit when he can't resist

"Shave and a haircut two bits"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIBK7UxRTqE

We can't resist

because standing up to them and telling them that they are wrong is what a good person does. If you don't want to, don't, but please don't say that no one should because you want to make the effort. Stand up enough and maybe the next person won't have to.