Showing posts with label The Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Bible. Show all posts

February 4, 2017

Old Gay Slang of Polari Gets Theological Seminarians in Holy Hot water



                                                                         
 Polari Bible





A Church of England theological college has expressed regret after trainee priests held a service in the antiquated gay slang language Polari.

In commemorating LGBT History Month I am including this posting which appeared on the BBC an hour ago.
The reason this touched me enough to want to include it with other LGBT news and with Trump’s news of picking fights with our friends and adversaries is because it included three words gay slang, Bible.  

We had our hands full with home grown terrorists,  now we are doing everything we can as a government to create bad will so we get no backing from our friends, from intelligence that affect us and trade that make our goods cheaper to creating new problems with our enemies which can cause a nasty confrontation in which there would be no winners.

As I mentioned about the bible which most people don’t know is that is a compilation of pages written by men in the old testament for jews and the new for a new church which was formed less than 2,000 years ago. This particular story has to do with gay slang and the bible.

In the bible there were many pages that were found and depending which king was in power pages were put together and translated to form the new testament. I am mentioning this because the bible has many editions and on each edition you find a newer translation in relationship to how the people on that period talked. Open your bible and see under which king it was translated and put together.
Just like the bible was form for the people of those times and you today are free to pick it as your holy book from your god, you are reading something a man just like you picked for the people of his time and put together to be understood by the religious among them. It was not the apostles it was not Jesus Christ or anyone you might say was a holy person because its closeness to Jesus Christ or to god. There were men that were born many decades after Jesus died.

My point being that we most be careful when we take not a book but a particular phrase on the bible be new or old testament and take it as god talking to you because it was not god who picked that page for you to read and it was not a servant of god who translated it. I can freely say these were not god fearing men because history tell us that all those kings from England to Egypt, Greece, Germany and nations that longer exist did very awful things. The bible in many cases was used as a tool for an  excuse to commit murder and other barbarisms.

Having those things in mind I present to you a holy scandal that occurred when some seminary students(and I can tell you we can be very curious and the church keeps a tight control on that curious spirit)decided to pick the polar bible to carry a service. As far as they were concerned at the time the Polaris bible was also a bible just from a different linguistic time.
 As you read,  it will become clearer of what I am talking about and how just reading the bible got some seminarians in holy hot water. Gays from another era (that sounds so good to write even though is not true for Egypt, Iran and so many other places in Africa and as far N.East as the Soviets (Russians) still jail, kill gays that come out. That is why we can never relax. For the sake of those gays and us that we do not go back by executive order, legislation or another opinion by an anti gay Court.

                                                                         +_!*!_+

The service at the chapel of Westcott House in Cambridge was to commemorate LGBT history month.
The congregation was told the use of the lexicon was an attempt to "queer the liturgy of evening prayer".
But officials said it had not been authorized and was at variance with the doctrine and teaching of the church.

Polari is thought to have originated in Victorian London but fell out of use as homosexuality began to be decriminalized in England in the 1960s.

Its words, however, were brought to wider public attention in the same decade by comedian Kenneth Williams in the BBC radio series Round the Horne.
'Fantabulosa Fairy'
One person present at the service told BBC News it was led by an ordinand - a trainee priest - rather than a licensed minister.

The congregation was also made up of trainees.
While they had been given permission to hold a service to commemorate LGBT history month, a Church of England source said the college chaplain had not seen the wording of the service.
The translation was based on the Polari bible, a work compiled as a project in 2003 by the self-styled Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

The scripture and liturgy were printed on to an order of service.
An Old Testament reading from the Prophet Joel which says “rend your heart and not your garments, return to the Lord your God" was printed in Polari as "rend your thumping chest and not your frocks - and turn unto the Duchess your Gloria: for she is bona and merciful".

Instead of the traditional "Glory be to the father, and to the son, and the Holy Spirit" the prayer offered was: "Fabeness be to the Auntie, and to the Homie Chavvie, and to the Fantabulosa Fairy".
'Hugely regrettable'
Services in the Church of England are legally required to be conducted using the church’s approved liturgy.

The principal of Westcott House, the Rev Canon Chris Chivers, said the liturgy of the service had not been authorised for use.
He said: "I fully recognise that the contents of the service are at variance with the doctrine and teaching of the Church of England and that is hugely regrettable.
"Inevitably for some members of the house this caused considerable upset and disquiet and I have spoken at length to those involved in organising the service.
“I will be reviewing and tightening the internal mechanisms of the house to ensure this never happens again."

BBC and
Adam Gonzalez, Publisher

March 26, 2016

The Adherence to Ancient Scripts is the Mother of Most LGBT Discrimination



                                                                                                             
This early Christian Coptic papyrus includes an early reference to Jesus' wife, whose existence is never explicitly stated or denied in the New Testament. Photo: Karen L. King.




 Australians are becoming increasingly impatient with Christian opposition to same sex marriage, in large part because the arguments typically mounted against it appear so weak and unconvincing.

For example, the argument that because marriage is an ancient institution it shouldn’t be tampered with is contradicted by the fact that it has been tampered with, modified and redefined throughout all of its long history.

The argument that marriage entails the possibility of having children is weak and historically inaccurate too. The oft repeated claim that children should be brought up by their biological parents, and are significantly disadvantaged if brought up by same sex couples, isn’t supported by a growing body of empirical evidence. The idea that there are only two basic or normative genders, male and female, is similarly contraAdherence to an Acient Text is the Mother of dicted by accumulating evidence from the relevant sciences.
 
It is little wonder that Australians, and young Australians in particular, are mystified and irritated by this Christian opposition. There is, among many, a growing suspicion that the arguments used by Christians are simply a smokescreen to hide the real and underlying prejudice, which is homophobia: the primal fear of variations from the sexual norm.

There is likely to be some truth in this accusation. Opposition to same sex marriage is so strong, and so obviously visceral in its overwhelming urgency that something must be going on below the surface, surely.

But there is another, perhaps even more influential prejudice at the heart of Christian opposition to same sex marriage.

This too-often-unacknowledged prejudice is the belief that what the Bible says or implies must take precedence over every other source of knowledge. If the Bible says or implies that something is wrong, it is wrong, regardless of what anyone might say, regardless of how sensible alternative ways of looking at things might seem.
 
There are many subtly different forms of this way of thinking, which reaches all the way back into the Bible itself, but the bottom-line prejudice is this: if the Bible clearly and plainly asserts that something is true or right, it is true or right.

I call this a prejudice because it involves pre-judging, making a judgement before the facts, and often irrespective of the facts.

History is replete with examples of this prejudice and its influence. Early readers of the Bible were convinced that the clear teaching of its early chapters gave them an accurate picture of the origins and spread of human civilisation.

They were understandably disturbed by the discoveries of Copernicus, quickly described as heretical and contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible, which it is. Bible-believing Christians continue to resist scientific consensus about the age of the earth and universe. They continue to hold out against evolutionary theory, and still argue that our first ancestors were Adam and Eve, despite accumulating evidence to the contrary.

 
And the reason they do this is because of this overriding prejudice that the Bible is to be the Christian’s first and final authority, which must always take precedence over extra-Biblical sources of knowledge or understanding.

It is this prejudice which helps to explain why some Christians are so opposed to same sex-marriage. The arguments employed by them, when boiled down to their motivational core, are simply valiant efforts to make sense of what they believe to be the clear teaching of the Bible, with verses such as the following quoted in support:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them ... Leviticus 20:13.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error ... Romans 1:24-27.

It is because same sex marriage would necessarily involve sexual activity which the Bible plainly and clearly describes as abominable or abhorrent that Christians who adhere to this way of reading the Bible simply cannot say yes to same sex marriage. It is not that they are homophobic, necessarily. It is not that they are not genuinely caring and compassionate towards LGBTI Australians. Many are. However, their Bible-based, Bible-first prejudice simply won’t allow them to approve of this institutional modification.

But the problem with this prejudice, as with other prejudices, is that it can mislead and cause damage, which it certainly has in this case. Throughout the history of the church, and with ample justification from the text, Christians have taken the above verses to imply that to be gay is to be perverse; is to be corrupt and a corrupter of others.

They have insisted that homosexuality is a life-style choice, or a sickness, or a defect from which one can be healed. Most seriously, it is an affront to God which makes the gay person worthy of rejection and disdain.

Although Christians might now distance themselves from homophobic attitudes, these historic and Bible-based understandings of homosexuality have clearly contributed to homophobia, along with the terrible and inexcusable mistreatment of LGBTI people which continues to this day.

 
And it is for that reason that I, as a dissenting Christian, along with many Christians who think likewise, believe the time has come for this prejudice to be shed. We need to acknowledge that the Bible, for all of its beauty, wisdom and on-going relevance, is an ancient text, pregnant with ancient assumptions and beliefs, many of which we no longer reasonably hold.

We no longer believe in an earth-centric universe. We no longer reasonably believe in a young earth, or that the populations of the world can be traced back to two first-created humans known as Adam and Eve.

We, or most of us, have happily shed these earlier held beliefs, and therefore should also feel free to re-think the assumptions and beliefs which underlie Biblical discomfort with same sex activity.

Pushing back to understand these assumptions and beliefs will give us the wherewithal to appropriate the abiding relevance of these ancient texts, and will also put us in a place when we can fully and generously apologise for the damage and hurt we have caused to countless numbers of our LGBTI sons and daughters. May that time come quickly.

November 23, 2014

Leviticus Bans 76 Acts and Gives Out Penalties (How many are you guilty of?)



76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and their penalties)

by ***DAVE on WED  
I ran across this this list first via Fred Clark, tracking it back to here — a list of 76 actions proclaimed as sinful or forbidden in Leviticus.
Leviticus is a funny book for modern Christians.  Along with Deuteronomy and swathes of Exodus and Numbers, it lays out the Law for the Israelites.  But it’s largely ignored by modern Christians because it’s felt that Jesus replaced the Law (except where He didn’t) and that Paul said a lot of it didn’t apply (except for the parts that did).  And for all of that, many are still willing to cite Leviticus for things that they think are sinful, while ignoring it for things they don’t.
In other words, people tend to cherry-pick which of the Levitican laws (or, for that matter, all of the Old Covenant, not to mention most of the Bible) they think still apply, and which don’t.
This cherry-picking is sometimes reasoned, and sometimes not.  Sometimes it’s based on personal taste — I think that’s okay, so we can ignore that law. Everyone does that these days, so it must be fine. I think that’s icky, so we should cite it frequently as sinful. Sometimes it’s based on reasoning — e.g., comparing them to the Greatest Commandments as Jesus laid them out and seeing if they still seem to apply:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I prefer the latter approach.
So here are 76 things in Leviticus, with verse references, that are banned.  It’s by no means exhaustive. As an extension of original list, I’m going to try to include the stated penalties for each act.  Consider which of these you (if you’re of such persuasion) think still apply, and which we get a pass on, and why you believe so.
Some of the items specify the penalty or punishment. Many fall back to Leviticus 4 and 5, which lists, based on who commits the sin and whether they knew it was a sin or not, what sort of sacrificial offering animal needs to be given up.
The text except for what’s in [square brackets] is from here.
 1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11) [Normal penalty.]
2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God(2:13) [Normal penalty.]
3.       Eating fat (3:17) [That one's "a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live." All fat is to be saved for offerings to God. Normal penalty.]
4.       Eating blood (3:17) [Normal penalty]
5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1) ["They will be held responsible."]
6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1) [Which sounds like hearsay. At any rate, "they shall be held responsible."]
7.       Touching an unclean animal (5:2) [NIV translates this as touching "the carcass" of an unclean animal. So if Rover dies, or you're a worker in a pork plant, you're in trouble here. Normal penalty.]
8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4) [Even if you don't realize you have. Normal penalty.]
9.       Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]
10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]
11.   Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1) [God will smite you.]
12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) ["You will die" and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]
13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6) ["You will die" and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]
14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9) ["You will die." May only apply to the priesthood.]
15.   Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7) ["You will be unclean.]
16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8) ["You will be unclean."]
17.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) ["You will be unclean."]
18.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19) ["You will be unclean."]
19.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22) ["You will be unclean."]
20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)  ["You will be unclean." Also applies to touching their carcasses.]
21.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29) ["You will be unclean."]
22.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42) ["You will be unclean."]
23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4) [Actually, she's unclean a week, and then another 33 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]
24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) [Actually, she's unclean a week, and then another 66 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]
25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7) [The penalty for all the sexual sins in ch. 18 is that the participants are to be "cut off" from their people. Some have additional penalties mentioned below.]
26.   Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8) [In 20:11, both are to be put to death.]
27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9) [In 20:17, if you marry her, both are to be "publicly removed from their people"]
28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
29.   Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13) [In 20:19, he will be held responsible for the dishonor.]
31.   Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14) [In 20:20, they are held responsible for the dishonor, "they will die childless"]
32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15) [In 20:12, both are to be put to death.]
33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16) [In 20:21, if you marry her, "they will be childless."]
34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17) [No specific penalty given, but per 20:14 if you marry both of them, all three of you are to be "burned in fire."]
35.   Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) [15:24 simply says the man will be considered unclean for 7 days. In 20:18, "Both of them are to be cut off from their people"]
37.   Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20) [In 20:10, both are to be put to death.]
38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21) [In 20:2, the person is to be stoned to death.]
39.   Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22) [In 20:13, both are to be put to death.]
40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23) [In 20:15, both are to be killed.]
41.   Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4) [No penalty given.]
42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) [To be left for the poor. No penalty given.]
43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your  vineyard (19:10) [To be left for the poor. No penalty given.]
44.   Stealing (19:11) [No penalty given.]
45.   Lying (19:11) [No penalty given.]
46.   Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12) [No penalty given.]
47.   Defrauding your neighbour (19:13) [No penalty given.]
48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13) [No penalty given.]
49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14) [No penalty given.]
50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15) [No penalty given.]
51.   Spreading slander (19:16) [No penalty given.]
52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16) [No penalty given.]
53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18) [No penalty given.]
54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) [No penalty given.]
55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19) [No penalty given.]
56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) [No penalty given.]
57.   Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20) ["Due punishment," but not death, just a ram for sacrifice.]
58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) [No penalty given. May only apply to fruit trees planted in Israel.]
59.   Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26) [No penalty, but in 20:6 they will be "cut off from their people" by God. In 20:27, they are to be stoned to death.]
60.   Trimming your beard (19:27) [No penalty given.]
61.   Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27) [No penalty given.]
62.   Getting tattoos (19:28) [No penalty given.]
63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29) ["The land will turn to prostitution." No other penalty given.]
64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31) [No penalty given.]
65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32) [No penalty given.]
66.   Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”  (19:33-34) [No penalty  given.]
67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) [No penalty given.]
68.   Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9) [Death, as noted.]
69.   Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13) [No penalty given.]
70.   Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11) [I.e., if you're a priest. No penalty given.]
71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28) [May apply only to sacrificial animals. No penalty given.]
72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3) [No penalty given.]
73.   Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14) [Death.]
74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22) [Killing someone means death. Injuring someone mean punishment in kind. Killing or injuring another's animal means punishment in kind.]
75.   Selling land permanently (25:23) [No penalty given.]
76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42) [No penalty given.]
Quite the list.  Not many Christians today would go for all of those … but most would consider some of them as laudable commandments still applicable today.
And for good measure,I’ll add this little bit (Leviticus 35-37):
If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.

Levitcus a book of law for the time. Our laws and nations laws change as time changes because the world becomes a different place every quarter of a century (25 yrs). Out laws ares for our times, if Leviticus was written today What do you think it would say?  

May 6, 2014

This Video is Not Safe for Friends & Family of a Homophobe or Bible Thumper



Paul Provenza: My favorite piece of yours, and it's not poetry, it's comedy.
Jamie Kilstein: No, it's stand-up.
Paul Provenza: Do that one joke. Do that one joke about gay rights. Do you want to stand?
Jamie Kilstein: Ron, do you want me to stand or sit, or...
Ron White: You can sit right where you are so you can't get away if it sucks.
Jamie Kilstein: To every heterosexual, mentally-abusive, closet racist, fast food feeding, let-your-kid-run-around-a-mall-like-a-psychopath parent: Why do you have, like, nine fucking kids yet you say that gay folk can't adopt because it might screw the child up. And I know America thinks that every time a gay couple adopts a child, it forces otherwise straight and homophobic Pastor Ted Haggard to hire a gay male prostitute and engage in a week-long meth-induced fuck spree. I know! He didn't want to do it, you guys, but then a gay couple adopted and it forced him to take an injection of another male prostitute cock. I know. I get it. But I say just because your man bits fit into some girl bits doesn't mean you have to have kids.
Do you know how many straight parents shouldn't have children? Go to a movie theater or an IHOP on a Sunday. And don't tell us that two men or two women in the bedroom may cause a child to question his sexuality. Any kid basing his sex life on the sounds coming from his parents bedroom is already fucked beyond repair! If God designed marriage for a man and a woman, then statistics say that God is failing. That is below failing, just look at otherwise straight and homophobic Pastor Ted Haggard who's married with children but hired a gay male prostitute to shame-fist him into a meth coma. But you say that being gay is immoral? Really? More immoral than shame-fisting? Because I would rather have my kids being raised by the flaming queer couple down the street than have them spend another night at the church with Father Diddlyhands. Is that why you want adoption restricted, Church? You keeping all the young ones for yourself, church? If you really think that a child should only be raised by a married couple, then I have an idea: Let the gays marry, asshole!
These are people who will raise a child for a better reason than "the condom broke." You give me one valid argument besides, "But God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Really? Because by the looks of it, Adam and Eve fucked up big time and maybe Adam should have explored other options! So stop fucking telling us that the Bible says that being gay is unnatural because I've read the Bible. And there is a lot of unnatural shit that happens in that book! I would say that a dude dying then rising from the dead in a zombie-esque fashion is far less natural than me sucking a cock because at least cock-sucking you can prove.
Ron White: Wait a minute. I liked that. Try it standing up.
There may be small errors in this transcript.


April 23, 2014

“God and the Gay Christian” Today’s changes will redirect the anti gay talk in the Church

                                                                            



Would the title of this posting become true? I hope so. A few years ago I would have said no because there has been already books and many seminarians saying pretty much what this book says. 
Back in 2000 I sat with my ex-partners’ pastor on our dining room table and I argued every passage in the bible that homophobes and confused or just bias Christians have been using  as an excuse (while ignoring other materials there) to condemn same sex couples. At the end of that discussion and as he tried to explained and I rebutted him and vice versa he said to us, “I think you are right but Im not wrong” How can that be I asked. He said his congregation was not ready to accept homosexuals no matter what the bible said and he was paid to enforce the code of his church so he had to go by his congregation’s thoughts on this. He apologized because a few months ago my partner had been fired from the church with just a phone call from this pastor as soon as he heard he had come out gay. He asked if it was true and that’s all it took. I knew better and I knew he was entitled to a trial and I figured I had the credentials to defend him in his church but they did not want that. The phone call was all he got. 
I fired a letter to him calling him a coward for doing it this way and I invited him to come to us with any members of his church and talk it over coffee and the scriptures. To my surprised he showed by himself one day. So after all the talk and cordial argument it was left  to the church members being disgusted  against gays not on the bible but on what they thought they knew about it.
I’ve always known that hate, homophobia and bias against gays is not something that can honestly be defended by the bible. It’s always been the music that they give it to the scriptures that makes the dance, not the words. The bible condemns many things but for christians there is exception no matter what you are. If the bible tells you not to do something like eat shell fish, that’s too hard it’s easier to take it on gays. Being straight it’s an easy thing to be if you are straight.

What has change to make things happen?


What is change is the way americans and the world receive information. Anybody with enough time can find out what the truth is on most subjects. Anyone with a computer and know how can find truthful direct information with out the middle men involved. Not too long ago someone could and did get on the air of any TV or cable station and would say that gays are everything from thieves to child molesters. Cannot even be trusted to shoot a rifle to be a soldier. Anybody can also now compare with what ever crazy claims are being made being given attribution to the bible. Before to know if it was true you had to get the type of bible or edition this individual was supposed to have used to come up with the information and then, good luck in trying to find a particular set of words in the bible without having to spent hours searching to find out those quotes are made up.  Not so anymore. 


You google what ever you want and the only job is to verify that is not the Onion or similar made up information group putting out the results you get. Also with people finding out who gay people really are (their neighbors, cops, teachers and sons and daughters) you can’t just start slandering  this bunch of millions of people on public airwaves. Besides don’t be telling the parents of a son who already came out that he likes to molest little girls, boys, donkeys. You can’t get away with that stuff anymore, unless you are in Russia and then we know that Russia is always lived by the truth their leaders tell them even if they are lies.


Once the american people changed their mind with the help of a new generation of smart savvy young people, lies and useless, dangerous traditions are no longer popular. The remainder is the church and some eternal homophobes. With these changes in place, the church now might be able to listen to reason. It might be painful at first but it just has to happen for them to survive.  All religious denominations had to grow thru changes as the world change so their will. Like that pastor told my ex and myself, If the church believes in something I am being paid to help them and direct them on their believes. Nothing to do with the bible. Some orthodox jews will tell you, what they do it’s not written in any scriptures but in tradition. Passed through the generations. Traditions are habits in this case bad, unfair old habits, it’s time they learn new ones.

Adam Gonzalez, publisher
adamfoxie blog International
                                                                       
"The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships. There is no biblical teaching about sexual orientation, nor is there any call to lifelong celibacy for gay people," Vines – now founder of The Reformation Project, which seeks to reform church teachings on sexual orientation – maintained.
God and the Gay Christian was released Tuesday. The publisher, Convergent Books,  says that the book will "radically change the conversation about being gay in the church."
In an article on Monday in The Wichita Eagle, Vines says that his message is not that change in the church is inevitable, but that it is possible.
"My message is that change is possible. I think it's only really possible with the right biblical approach to arguments. That's what the book is all about. But once you have that, it's going to take a tremendous amount of persistence and effort and determination and grit for years to make that happen. But I'm convinced that it's possible," the author states.
"I want the Christian church to be an effective, authentic witness of God's love to the world," he adds. "That's what most Christians want, too."
Several Southern Baptists have released reviews or critiques of the new book. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. and his colleagues released on Tuesday an e-book, titled God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines.
Mohler told Southern Seminary News that many people may believe Vines' "treatment of the Bible is legitimate."
"I think that it's very important that evangelicals be reminded that the church has not misunderstood Scripture for 2,000 years," he said.
While Mohler is offering a 100-page critique, Walker has provided a more brief review, summarizing Vines' arguments and his response in nine pages.
"If I was to condense the substance of Vines' book, here's what is happening: Vines has compiled liberal biblical scholarship and popularized it for a non-technical audience," Walker sums. "Let me be clear: Vines is not advancing new arguments. In fact, his work draws largely from existing gay-affirming scholarship. Vines is making liberal scholarship accessible for common audiences and then compounding its effect by bringing in the emotionally laden context of our times."
Aware that Vines may read his review, Walker says the first thing he would do is tell Vines that he loves him and that he deserves dignity and respect.
"I would apologize to him for what I can only assume are the countless insensitivities and insults he's experienced as a same-sex attracted person. I would also apologize to Matthew for the pat, unhelpful answers and rejection he's received from Christians who don't know how to speak about homosexuality."
He adds, however, that he would also tell Vines that he has been "deceived."
"He's believed the lie that homosexuality will prosper his life."
He says he would also "implore Matthew to repent of a book designed to cast a shadow of suspicion and doubt about the Scripture's teaching on sexuality;" and "exhort him to a path of discipleship with incalculable unknowns – unknown difficulties I will not experience and can only sympathize with. But I will commend him to set his desires before the cross, knowing that Jesus is better than any desire we think needs satisfied; that Jesus is better than marriage, than children, than sexual fulfillment itself.”

 STOYAN ZAIMOV

on
Andrew Walker’s new book 

March 24, 2014

Lesbian Asks Harlem Church to Stone Her to Death

Lesbian Confronts Anti-Gay Harlem Church And Asks Them To Stone Her To Death
People love to quote or paraphrase the bible. I would never quote as truth from any book unless I read the book and understood it. On most famous speeches you have words such as life, death, light darkness and so on that if one were to take a particular word or paragraph one could state the opposite of what the point the writer was trying to make. In the bible you have songs, poems, fables, dreams, nightmares, death to humans and animal? and so much of so much that even reading it unless you understood where it came from what writer said what and who he was, the look of the reader is going to be one of overload. 
Death is something that is called for many things from eating shell fish to cheating, the type of clothes etc. But people against or pro something only quote or do the parts that are convenient to them. If that was for any book, who cares? No one because that is what humans do, what is convenient to their view of things. The problem here is that when people talk about this book people are talking about real people. There have been people starving for a job because they were either protestant or catholic. It either goes like that of people being killed today! For the same reasons as a centuries ago.
Lebanon, Syria, Israel and in every country in the middle east your religion dictates how you live and in some cases if you a re going to live. I wish that more educated people would at least stop quoting something they don’t understand or make it a rule not to quote from any book they haven’t read. For many years the bible was not accessible for others but priests to read. At the protestant Seminary I  was taught the reason for that was so people would not know the real truth. That has some truth to it but very little. The catholic church knew that people would find out that selling pieces of wood saying it part of the cross and that will save them from purgatory, by the way there is no such word in any translation of any version of the bible. But also they knew that this book was too confusing and it appeared contradictory. Yes is contradictory because is not one book but many books assembled together and not at the same time or century.
With that introduction let me tell you what Jennifer Louise decided to do fed up of the erroneous quoting of the bible. 
When Jennifer Louise Lopez first laid eyes on a horrific anti-gay sign posted by The ATLAH Worldwide Missionary Church in her neighborhood in Harlem, she decided to take action.
The church run by Dr. James David Manning, made headlines in February when they posted a sign that read “Obama has released the homo demons on the black man. Look out black woman. A white homo may take your man.”
o-ANTIGAY-CHURCH-570
The church later changed the sign to one that read “Jesus would stone homos,” along with “Stoning is still the law” and Bible verses Matthew 5:17-19, Deuteronomy 17:5-7, Leviticus 20:13 and John 8:1-11.
In response to their latest sign, Lopez knocked on the church’s front door this week and informed the man who answered that she was there for her stoning. “I saw your sign and I’m here for my stoning, I’m a lesbian,” Lopez tells the man in a video she posted on Facebook.
The unidentified man tells Lopez that he doesn’t have any stones but she should come back the next day. 

“I hope that by going up to the door and presenting myself as the human and the product of Godess’ creation, churches can begin to understand that us lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are the very same creations that they are,” Lopez told The Huffington Post. “My Godess is one of peace, love and inclusion for everyone. As a United Methodist Christian I would love to see that one day soon all of our churches, including any religion, are able to finally stop the discrimination toward LGBT people.”
Huffpost adds:

 Lopez noted in the comments section of the video that her actions were inspired by Pamela Raintree, a transgender woman who dared a lawmaker to stone her last January. Raintree decided to confront Councilman Ron Webb after he remained the single dissenting vote against the LGBT non-discrimination ordinance that passed in Shreveport, Louisiana, last December and then masterminded a repeal of the ordinance. After Raintree’s incredible speech, Webb rescinded his repeal.

January 22, 2014

A Biblical Defense of Gay Marriage

                                                                     
 
Brendan McCartney This past holiday season, I was treated to a four-hour drive home to South Carolina, where I was greeted by purring cats, a new Beyoncé album and a binge watching of House of Cards. Being a resident of South Carolina certainly has its benefits—for instance, if I weren’t a ginger I probably would have been able to tan over the break—but it also means that whenever I travel back to that beaming corner of the Bible Belt, I know I will be exposed to strict social standards that are far different from my own.
I am simultaneously Christian and gay. This means I support things like happiness, jail instead of public execution, musical expression, hot chocolate, human rights and the ability to freely love and marry another consenting adult regardless of sex. Some might be surprised when I say that I support all of these things not because I am gay, but because I am Christian.
Growing up I always felt confused about how exactly I identified religiously. My parents were members of different Christian denominations, so I often felt hazy as to why my family attended a Catholic church one week and a Lutheran one the next. I am thankful for growing up in this type of household because the focus was never on the specifics of religion, but rather on the importance of what faith can offer. Faith offered me a moral compass that I have always tried to stick to, and central to this morality is the intrinsic belief that whether individuals are made by a god or not, every life has significance.
I value reasonable arguments that challenge my own beliefs. In some ways, I am most bothered not by inequality, but by the ways in which people brandish misunderstood notions of their faiths in their attempts to justify it. I believe inequality to be the effect of ignorance, yet I remind myself repeatedly that when it comes to issues like these, the solution is not to personally attack social conservatives as “bigots.” Such a label fails to leave room for respectful discussion or open-mindedness.
When someone like Michele Bachmann laments that “Our children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and perhaps they should try it” or Rick Santorum argues that “Christians are the most tolerant people in the world…for the Republican Party to even contemplate going along with [DOMA’s repeal] is the destruction of our republic,” a refutation should explain what the Bible actually says about homosexuality. I do not mean that the Bible should be the go-to source for checking our moral compasses—it shouldn’t. But for any argument for gay rights to hope to carry traction against biblical conservatives like Bachmann and Santorum, it must at least in part respond to their biblical misrepresentations. When it comes down to it, the Bible says little on the topic in comparison to the hundreds of verses it spends promoting lifestyles of love, positivity, selflessness and non-judgment.
Neither the Torah nor the New Testament explicitly refers to homosexuality. In few instances, verses speak vaguely and with modern translations of words that did not originally refer to homosexuality. Leviticus reveals that “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: It is an abomination.” A literal understanding implies men cannot cuddle with other men. The sheer amount of looser interpretations for verses like this one reveal the ambiguity modern understandings face. In 1 Corinthians, Paul listed “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” in a list of individuals who will not be granted access into heaven. Modern translations turn these words into “homosexuals,” but they more closely signify passive sexual partners. Not once in the New Testament is there a regulation against homosexuality.
The truth is that using the Bible to endorse a modern social issue is about as useful as giving an iPhone to a Roman citizen of the first century would have been. “Natural” has nothing to do with human interpretations of how God created the earth to be. If so, Rick Santorum would be expected to not wear suits of multiple fabrics, and—had she lived a century ago—Michele Bachmann would not have been allowed to give her views because Christian men would have told her that women were not naturally created for politics. Being “natural” has everything to do with what society should and should not accept, and this should not be dictated by loose, manipulated interpretations of a book written in a different era and culture.
Brendan McCartney is a Trinity sophomore.  Has a Column  at:

Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

The Forest Needs help

Summer Athlete

Adamfoxie Blog Int.

Adamfoxie Blog Int.
Amazon

ONE

ONE
Relief World Hunger

Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Amazon EcHo

Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

Popular Posts

Everyday at the Movies

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

The Gay Man in You♥ or Him