84 responses

  1. David C.
    August 24, 2009

    I added a review on Google Maps.

  2. Richard W. Fitch
    August 24, 2009

    Alex – You ask a legitimate question. It is from the perspective of a worldview formed in the Renaissance and Enlightenment as well as from the beliefs derived from the teachings of Jesus. When I studied Jewish Tradition and History in seminary, the professor was the rabbi of a local Conservative temple. I will always remember one of the statements he repeated as a focus of Jewish identity, especially for the ancient Hebrews but no less for the modern Jews. “One man is no man.” Our modern concepts of individualism are not consistent with the thoughts of the ancients. The basic unit was the tribe, not the person, not the nuclear family. Community and harmony were essential for their preservation. The commandment to “Honour thy father and thy mother” would in the more recent past have been “Obey the Crown”. In that time of patriarchal social structure, ‘father’ in this sense could be understood as the mayor of a town or governor of a region. It was imperative for the cohesiveness of society to follow the rule of the patriarch. The well-being of society was seen as contingent on also obeying the commands of their god. The individual who disrupted this cohesiveness was like a malign tumour that threatened the health of the whole social body. It was better to cut off the tumour than to allow the death of the whole body. /Does this sound like a familiar claim of today? LGBT persons are a cancer of society?/ God was seen as both just and loving, but his love was like the ‘tough love’ in modern parlance. The essential unit being the community, any part which ‘diseased’ the body must be removed. From that point-of-view, Yes, the person stoned was not a blameless victim, but rather a destoyer of the body corporate.

  3. Jane Macoubrie
    August 24, 2009

    Wow. I was wandering in the wilderness looking for moderate political web sites, when I stumbled on this horrific pastor’s diatribe and followed it here. After reading the comments above, I am moved to encourage you thoughtful people (thank you!) to read “Who Wrote The Bible?” This book, written by a bible scholar, is his attempt to suss out who actually set pen to paper to create the old testament portion of the Bible. The answer he arrives at is interesting; repressive regimes have had a long history, in religion as in politics. Some of the bible scholar’s story and facts might be useful knowledge for some reading this thread, if you have not read this book already.

  4. Richard W. Fitch
    August 24, 2009

    Jane – thanks for the tip. Checked out the info at Amazon and my local library sites. Sounds like a worthwhile read, added to my ever-growing booklist :-)

  5. Priya Lynn
    August 24, 2009

    Timothy said “No. The new testament does not call for gays to be put to death.”

    Alex said “Timothy is right, Priya Lynn: the New Testament does not call for gays to be put to death.”

    You’re both wrong, and I’m surprised at you – I’m pretty sure you know better:

    Romans 1:26-27

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

    Romans 1:32

    Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Now given that you’ve denied the truth once already, at least spare us the tortured “logic” where you claim the words don’t mean what they say.

  6. Timothy Kincaid
    August 24, 2009

    Priya Lynn

    Cherry picking doesn’t prove your point. Read the whole passage.

    Using your logic I could quote from your latest comment to say:

    Priya Lynn
    August 24th, 2009

    Timothy is right

  7. Alex
    August 24, 2009

    Alex says “It’s late and I’m too tired to argue about which of us is interpreting a 2,000-year-old document correctly.”

  8. Richard W. Fitch
    August 24, 2009

    Priya – I don’t know your credentials, but there is no ‘tortured logic’ involved in asserting that you are wrong. In the context given, ‘death’ says separation from God. It does not say – “Take these sinners out and stone them to death.” Paul elsewhere makes the affirmation that the wages of sin is death. God will punish and banish them in the ‘day of judgment’. It’s always easy to cherry pick and proof text, but what Paul is describing here has to do with worshiping man-made idols and therefore being rejected by God to their own eternal demise. The first three chapters of Romans are a single discourse and must be understood as an integrated whole.

  9. Priya Lynn
    August 25, 2009

    LOL, nice try Timothy and Richard.

  10. Timothy Kincaid
    August 25, 2009

    Priya, you are entitled to believe whatever you like about religion. Seriously. I have no desire to change your devoutly held faith.

    But please realize that when you cherry pick scriptures you aren’t impressing or convincing those of us who actually know what the Bible says, the context of the writing, and what Christianity believes.

    Do us (and yourself) a favor. The next time you want to quote a few scriptures, go and read the entire chapter – or more if it is one theme or message. And see if your interpretation holds up to the context.

    OK?

  11. Priya Lynn
    August 25, 2009

    Timothy, faith is belief in something you have no evidence for. I don’t believe anything I have no evidence for, you have faith, I do not. I don’t care if you’re impressed or convinced, you want to believe what you want in spite of all evidence to the contrary, I don’t make my comments for you, I do it for the objective people you might mislead with false claims such as “the new testament does not call for gays to be put to death”

    Spare me your “those of us who actually know what the bible says”. You’re pretending just as KT said. I’ve read your bible and no objective observer would believe your interpretation over the obvious one. You’ve decided in advance what you want to be true and you torture logic until you feel comfortable with it.

    I don’t blame you, I wouldn’t want to have to defend that evil book either but you’re not convincing anyone who hasn’t already prejudged what they want to believe about the bible. Many Christians want desperately to believe the god depicted in their bible is a good guy despite its clear statements to the contrary. The rational thing to do would be to recognize that this book is clearly in no way associated with any just and loving god, it is entirely the product of the imaginations of bronze age bigots. That’s why it depicts a god you don’t want to accept as your own.

  12. kevin
    August 25, 2009

    the same chapter in Leviticus that advocates for the death of homosexuals also proclaims death to those who eat shell fish.

    I wonder if this homophobic, hate filled preacher should be executed for eating lobster and shrimp.

  13. Jim Burroway
    August 25, 2009

    Pyra,

    There are more than 20,000 Christian denominations, all because no two of them can agree on how to interpret the Bible. Your insistence that yours is the only way any “pobjective observer” can read the bible is exactly the same as you do is an arrogance that only the most aredent fundamentalists can muster.

    Frankly, I’m tired fo every thread becoming another excuse for your tirades on how the only way to view Christianity or the Bible is exacly yours. Face it: you’re no more objective on that particular subject than anyone else, me included. Unless yuo’re willing to admit that, you have nothing further to contribute.

    Hell, we cannot even agree on what the Constitution says, and its immeasurably shorter and more recent.

    And please don’t confuse Timothy or other gay Christians with your enemies.

  14. Priya Lynn
    August 25, 2009

    Its Priya Jim, not Pyra. Just as I suggested what an objective observer would see, Timothy talked about “what Christianity believes” without acknowledging the diversity of all 20,000 denominations so you might want to direct some criticism his way as well. As to whether or not any of those 20,000 denonminations are objective consider that 93% of the members of the national academy of sciences are atheists.

    And I’ve never considered Timothy or other gay christians my enemy

  15. James Martin
    August 26, 2009

    Why did God create gays if “His children” are supposed to murder each other?

    Doesn’t God have anything better to do?
    I don’t think God is very smart.

  16. Mark
    August 26, 2009

    He’s projecting. He thinks gays are recruiting because that’s what these Christians do – recruit. A classic case of projection – psych 101.

  17. PKinCanada
    August 27, 2009

    In Canada, neither religious communities nor society in general has collapsed as a result of same-sex equality. What exactly are these religious bigots afraid of again? How disheartening to see such hateful and vile words coming from those who profess Christ’s love. In Canada we have hate crime legislation intended to prevent or prosecute such nasty behaviour.

  18. Alex
    August 27, 2009

    PKinCanada,

    Quite simply, the religious bigots are afraid of being wrong.

  19. wangmo
    August 27, 2009

    I’m not gay. I have always thought the “God Hates Homosexuals” biblical notion was just plain wrong, and because it was wrong it causes needless
    hate and evil in this world.

    I wish I could remember his name, but I was told years ago (70’s) by a scholarly Rabbi (who was a dear friend of a friend of mine who is now deceased), that the reason Yahweh decreed homosexuality forbidden was because at the time the decree announced to the tribe, the Levi priests had decided it was necessary to increase the population to cultivate needed warriors for the coming wars they planned for gaining territory and wealth. They wanted the “seed” to grow soldiers instead of be wasted on gay sex pleasures.

    People may not know that when the Old Testament says “God said” it actually means one of the anointed Rabbis (Levite Priests) who has authority to eat the “sacrament” and in the resulting (likely Peyote) high, commune with “God” and “channel” from the “sacrament vision” what “He says” through his under-the-influence “Prophet.” Old Testament prophets were Rabbis anointed by the priests as a designated taker of the “sacrament” to report visions of what “God Said”.

    The “Be fruitful and multiply” command served the same purpose as the “homosexuality is an abomination in God’s eyes” crap. It’s long been overdue that people read more of the original Bible–the Torah, and speak with scholarly Rabbis, and learn about how the scrolls were put together as a history of the tribes to serve the social/political/economical reasons for its existence.

    If people bothered to actually get the facts, they would immediately stop acting out fear and scape-goating that targets gays, using and perpetuating false, out-dated beliefs that cause pain, harm, and death to homosexuals. GOD really had no other motivation for condemning homosexuality to the tribe other than to curb the behavior in an effort to redirect it to hopefully supply more births–potentially warriors for WAR.

    The real Creator of the Universe had nothing to do with condemning homosexuality, but a tribe’s need for warriors for WARS did, so they had their “prophet” say “God Said…” The tribe needed more land, livestock, virgins, and treasure, after all. Spoils of War. And I’m pretty sure the old patriarchs weren’t so stupid as to condemn the gays in their military, since anyone with a few brain cells to rub together notices that all species have a percentage of homosexuals in their population, possibly 15%. The Old Tribal leaders would certainly not choose to loose 15% of their troops because they’re gay. They need the numbers .

    The MOTIVATION FOR “God/Levite Priest/Rabbi” CONDEMNING HOMOSEXUALITY WAS BECAUSE THE TRIBE NEEDED MORE WARRIORS TO HAVE SUCCESSFUL WARS TO GAIN MORE TREASURE.

    Homosexuality is a natural part of life throughout all species. I read somewhere that 15% of the population is gay. THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY.

    This utter lunatic hate-filled repressed gay preacher, Steven I. Anderson from Tempe, AZ, who recommends “murdering” gay people should be removed from the pulpit and sent to a mental institution. He’s psychotic.

  20. Timothy Kincaid
    August 27, 2009

    I read somewhere that 15% of the population is gay. THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY.

    Current estimates by the CDC are that around 4% of the population is gay.

    As to how ones orientation is developed, there is no certainty. Studies show that at least for some people genetics plays a part but homosexuality is not purely genetic. Other factors, either before or after birth, may have an influence on some. In fact, there may not be one sole road to orientation.

    However, most gay people experience same-sex attraction a a very early age and have no voluntary contribution towards the development of their orientation. Additionally, there are no known methods by which one can eliminate same-sex attractions and replace them with opposite-sex attractions (as, ironically, the study of ex-gay groups has now shown).

    While its possible that some development factors are post-natal, for all practical purposes they were “born that way”.

  21. Priya Lynn
    August 27, 2009

    Current estimates by the CDC are that around 4% of the population is gay.

    If I remember correctly I believe the same report by the CDC says that 9% of the population considers themselves to be something other than heterosexual, so the 4% figure is a little misleading.

  22. Alex
    August 27, 2009

    Hunter College conducted an HRC-funded survey last year which found that 2.9% of Americans are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

    http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid53742.asp

    Here is the complete study: http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/pdf/hunter_college_poll_report_complete.pdf

  23. Priya Lynn
    August 27, 2009

    Alex, one thing we can say about all these polls is that they almost certainly underrepresent the percentage of gays. As a persecuted minority many, perhaps most LGBTs are unwilling to admit their sexuality to strangers and possibly have it used against them.

  24. Priya Lynn
    August 27, 2009

    Further to that, A 2003 telephone survey of more than 4,000 men conducted by the New York City public health department published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that MSM who deny being gay are more numerous than self-acknowledged gay or bisexual men.

    According to Reuters, fully 10 percent of the men in the survey who identified themselves as “straight” said in the past year they had sex with one or more men but no woman.

    http://www.indegayforum.org/news/printer/31092.html

    Its pretty much a sure bet that if men who deny being gay are having same sex sex there are also a lot of men having same sex sex who deny doing so as well.

  25. Priya Lynn
    August 27, 2009

    I should have clarified – MSM means men who have sex with men.

  26. Timothy Kincaid
    August 27, 2009

    Priya Lynn,

    The CDC report from 2005 showed the following break-out for men:

    90.2% – Heterosexual
    2.3% – Homosexual
    1.8% – Bisexual
    3.9% – Something else
    1.8% – Did not report

    While it is likely that some of the “something else” and the “did not report” are gay or bisexual, we cannot assume that most – or even any – of them are same-sex attracted. The most we can say is that 4.1% reported identifying as gay or bisexual.

    However it certainly is logical that most surveys undercount the gay/bi population.

    Alex,

    It appears that Hunter uses Knowledge Network’s online panel as their basis. I’m not convinced that their panel is representative of the population as a whole.

  27. Priya Lynn
    August 27, 2009

    Timothy, it also follows that we cannot assume some or most of the “something else” and “did not report” are not same sex attracted.

    Given the NYC survery that demonstrates that 10% of those claiming to be straight are having gay sex and common sense knowledge that many people who are same sex attracted will not admit it to being gay to a survey under any circumstances (I think we all know gays who won’t admit to outsiders they are gay) it’d be foolish to believe that there is any survey that does not underrepresent the true percentage of gays.

  28. Emily K
    August 27, 2009

    Let’s not forget Asexuals. (Yes, they do exist). That could also be part of the “other” categories.

  29. Sarah
    August 28, 2009

    CHRISTOPHER, Thanks for the history on this guy. Sounds like he might be a psycho.

  30. Paul
    August 29, 2009

    Surely if somebody of the same sex raped or molested me I’d be LESS likely to want to repeat the experience than to think “oooo that was fun, let’s do it again?”

    What I would like to know is why haven’t the mainstream Christian denominations taken this guy on, using his own Bible against him. Many will say they disagree with this kind of hate speech but only because they find it ‘distasteful’ or ‘nasty,’ not because they can build a Biblically-centered case that it’s wrong.

    Mind you, he’s not very smart – you should see the idiotic way he “proves” that the KJV is the authentic and authoritative word of God and his resentment at people who, you know, actually can read Biblical Greek. :)

  31. demonskull7
    September 1, 2009

    quite simply pastor steven anderson is a dangerous rightwing religious nutcase!!!!the brand of hatred,intolerance and bigotry he preaches appeals to those with single or double digit I.Q.s.my fear is that his rhetoric will incite some inbred rightwing wing religios morons to go commit acts of violence and murder!!! if god forbid, any one of his moronic followers do commit violent crimes against any person or group that he condems in his hate sermons he and his henchmen should be held criminally responsible,prosecuted and jailed!!this so-called man of god is just a perfect example of why church and state should remain seperate entities.the worst thing that could happen to this country would be to allow people like pastor anderson and others like him to turn this country into a theocracy!!

  32. Mark in Boise ID
    September 3, 2009

    I tried to email the guy with plenty of scripture to demonstrate that he’s full of crap and the bible doesn’t support any of what he says, but lo’ and behold (shocking) both the email address on the church web site and the phone number of the congregation are disconnected. Sad. Not as though he would have listened anyway. Narcissists like this almost impossible to reach. Anyone have his email please send it to me at: mnielebe at hotmail dot com.

  33. Mary Hickling
    September 7, 2009
  34. Load More Comments…

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop