Gays / Lebsians... Electric Fences. Nice Christian.

[Keep The Reason]

Just moseying around the interwebs, and I found this happy feller making these happy little statements.

Whatever could make a person believe these things?

Well, let's all agree that it's impossible for him to believe this sort of thing based on his religion -- that's not possible is it? So it must be something else. Any ideas?

Power
Money
Fame
...?

For the record, I think it's precisely what he says he's "ag'in'", which tells us what he's for.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

I don't know what he's saying but his body language seems very aggressive.

Anyway, I thought Jesus barely said a word on the subject he seems so bothered with?

[Keep The Reason]

Anyway, I thought Jesus barely said a word on the subject he seems so bothered with?

Because Jesus = god, god = the voice behind decrees in the OT, the decreees in the OT = Leviticus, and

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[NH Baritone]

But, silly straight man, gay folks have do not self-generate. Almost every single one of us was born to heterosexual parents. Sealing us away will no more eliminate homosexuality than sealing up deaf people eliminated deafness.

If gay folks did not exist, straight folks would apparently find a way to invent us.

(Oddly, Tim, society used to treat deaf people in a fashion similar to the way he wishes to treat GLBT folks.)

[mitchellmckain]

If gay folks did not exist, straight folks would apparently find a way to invent us.

Yep. And religion is exactly the same.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Or you could put all the gays and lesbians in the same coral with a few turkey basters and let nature take its course.

[mitchellmckain]

Or you could put all the gays and lesbians in the same coral with a few turkey basters and let nature take its course.

I don't understand this. I would guess that the "coral" is a mispelled version of "corral"? But I am not sure. I don't understand the reference to turkey basters. I looked that up on the internet and it did not help.

[StillSearching]

LOL

[Keep The Reason]

Turkey basters are comically invoked when talking about artificial insemination, mitch (please don't tell him I explained it to him).

[Brad]

I, too, came across the ignoramus nut bag NC pastor in a reference made in a local heathen email list and then again in this very interesting article, which once again illustrates a rather dark side of Christianity, at least in the American "heartland," or more accurately, "lack of heart land."

So here's my question about the nutter minister: Apparently the backlash has involved some protests by gay groups and maybe the church has had to take its web site down (at least I get server error type messages when I looked for it).

But wouldn't a very great many Christians, even rather conservative ones, find this fellow's remarks a blight on their faith and un-Christian to put it extremely mildly? And if so, have there been any open and public denunciations of Worley's words by other pastors or lay Christians or Christian institutional authorities? If not, why not?

I recall that we've discussed this sort of thing here (way back), and it seems like someone answered to the effect that Christians like to keep their disputes private rather than public.
But something like this?

And is there any reader of this forum who would say that either Worley's words or the cheers and applause from his audience reflect in any way either the direct teachings or the intentions of Jesus?

[Keep The Reason]

But wouldn't a very great many Christians, even rather conservative ones, find this fellow's remarks a blight on their faith and un-Christian to put it extremely mildly? And if so, have there been any open and public denunciations of Worley's words by other pastors or lay Christians or Christian institutional authorities? If not, why not?

They probably would but only because there is evolution -- slow as it might be -- even in religions. The whole "not Jesus' intention" discussion I find to be an impossible moving target that cannot be controlled because Christian apologists have Paul and the Acts to "escape hatch" into when they want to get into the areas of bigotry and misogyny (and the classic cultural defense of it).

The 3 primary NT quotes against homosexuals in the bible do not come from Jesus, but reaffirm the OT proscriptions that it's a grave sin:

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes

"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."

Corinthians 1 6:9-10

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

Timothy 1 1:9-10

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

So is this stuff "Jesus' intention"? How does one tell? In many instances, the Christian apologist will firmly defend the post-gospel writings as the core of the establishment of Jesus' doctrine here on earth, and others will argue that "Jesus (himself) never said any of that stuff". In fact, the very idea that there were some key elements to social justice that Jesus remained mute on (while lauding other, lesser issues) is a good reason to justly critique him as just another philosopher, but certainly not the demi-god he's worshiped as being. For something as naturally derived as homosexuality, you would think the Supreme Lord and Master of All would say something directly about it. And witches. And slaves. And child abuse.

But apparently people back then were "not ready" to hear that message (doesn't that infer they are stupid?). So we have this one section of the bible -- the gospels -- that seem to be about love and forgiveness, and then this other section -- from Acts on -- which is about rules and proscriptions and reaffirming OT laws and dismissing others... and generally about telling people how they must behave. It's more cognitive dissonance that truly defines the bible as a self-proclaimed work of a unified vision (it's obviously not).

But I'm fine if people want to simply adopt the 4 gospels as the story and toss the rest out-- nothing would please me more than to see everything from the Acts to Revelations discarded as just so much chin-music. But somehow I don't see too many Christians being willing to do that (and certainly not here on AC&AA).

I think most people who are not vehemently anti-gay in the rank and file merely don't know their bibles very well, and /or prefer to ignore the troubling passages, and the rest either read the damned thing or listen to people like this imbecile and simply accept his versions of it.

[Brad]

Yes, I'm aware of the passages you cite, KTR, and am largely in agreement with what you have to say.

But this pastor Worley goes quite a bit past even the customary homophobia, to be quite mild about it.

So my larger questions, which were really intended for the Christian cohort here, are these:

If the words of Jesus (Paul or no Paul) are the true essence of Christianity does any believer here think pastor Worley's words or attitudes reflect His message? Why or why not?

If not, then I'd imagine at least some Christians would find Worley's diatribe, especially now that it has come to prominence, almost as obscene as we non-believers, but those Christians would find it of even greater concern because it reflects on the set of ideas that is supposed to be most dear to them.
And if that is the case, then have any Christians, prominent or not, spoken out in public against Worley's speech?
And if not, why not?

[ScottBarger]

KTR,

Just because we have no record of Jesus teaching something, doesn't mean he didn't. You have greatly over simplified a LOT of biblical theology here, and it would take a lot more effort than I care to use up to deal with it all, but l will address the following issues because I think they are central.

The Gospels do contain what the early church seems to have thought most critical of his teachings, not everything, of course, but the most critical stuff. It is obvious that one of the (if not THE most) central virtues of Jesus' teachings was that of loving our neighbors. Throughout the Gospels and, contrary to your assertion, a good bit of the rest of the NT, this virtue is repeated, explained and applied. We are taught to love. And we are taught this over and over again.

So when it comes to issues that seem critically important to us, but are strangely absent from the text, it is likely not an evaluative discrepancy (Jesus and his culture were off target when it comes to social concerns, we and our culture are on target when it comes to these concerns) it is more likely a cultural discrepancy. For example, it is not that Jesus was ignoring the "sin" of slavery in favor of attacking some lessor social concern like sabbath laws. He was teaching core spiritual virtues (namely, justice, mercy, forgiveness, and love) that ought to have informed all aspects of life and then applying those virtues to issues that were contextually important to those who were listening. So what did Jesus say about slavery? Well he said we are to love and forgive people, and treat them how we would want to be treated. Does this apply to the master/slave relationship? Paul thought so. Does it apply to homosexuality? I think so.

[Keep The Reason]

Just because we have no record of Jesus teaching something, doesn't mean he didn't. You have greatly over simplified a LOT of biblical theology here, and it would take a lot more effort than I care to use up to deal with it all, but l will address the following issues because I think they are central.

Scott,

Christians claim that this book is the word of god. If it is lacking in some manner, I.e. isn't covering something, then look to the author, not to the critic.

Honestly, I consider this particular apologia to be be of the worst ones floated by Christians. When we ask why The bible doesn't contain anything beyond the knowledge of what was known then ( I'll use the creation myth as an easy example) we're told, "Oh, people back then wouldn't have understood the complexities". When we point out the simple flaws of gods teachings elsewhere, we're accused of over simplifying it as a criticism.

In short, you get to oversimplify things when convenient, but critics are chided for pointing out what the bible clearly and plainly states and we get accused of "oversimplifying" as a negative.

The Gospels do contain what the early church seems to have thought most critical of his teachings, not everything, of course, but the most critical stuff. It is obvious that one of the (if not THE most) central virtues of Jesus' teachings was that of loving our neighbors. Throughout the Gospels and, contrary to your assertion, a good bit of the rest of the NT, this virtue is repeated, explained and applied. We are taught to love. And we are taught this over and over again

.

Imagine a Jesus who says a couple of things. Imagine a Jesus who says, "Don't enslave people. Don't be intolerant of those who are different or believe differently from you. Let god deal directly with those you think are wrong-- he never wants you to do it for him. Don't ever harm children, women, or those weaker than you".

Four sentences that were simply beyond the lord and master of the entire universe. it's not like he wasn't used to stating a whole litany of other things we should be and do, it's just these four, according to apologists like yourself, were "not critical". It's also not like these simple concepts were beyond the simpler minded people of the time as you like to claim when it's asked, "Why didn't god just explain what diseases were? It would have saved lives and it would be a clear example of knowledge outside of the scope of humans at the time!" In fact, the four suggested sentences are far less complicated than what was stated earlier in India and in China by some 500 years. But they were simply beyond the lord and master of the entire universe. It's not like he already wasn't saying things that were radical. These are really far less radical, except maybe the slave one. But there were simply beyond the lord and master of the entire universe.

So when it comes to issues that seem critically important to us, but are strangely absent from the text, it is likely not an evaluative discrepancy (Jesus and his culture were off target when it comes to social concerns, we and our culture are on target when it comes to these concerns) it is more likely a cultural discrepancy. For example, it is not that Jesus was ignoring the "sin" of slavery in favor of attacking some lessor social concern like sabbath laws. He was teaching core spiritual virtues (namely, justice, mercy, forgiveness, and love) that ought to have informed all aspects of life and then applying those virtues to issues that were contextually important to those who were listening. So what did Jesus say about slavery? Well he said we are to love and forgive people, and treat them how we would want to be treated. Does this apply to the master/slave relationship? Paul thought so. Does it apply to homosexuality? I think so.

And it only took a couple of thousand years of massive human torment and suffering to figure this riddle out! That's all, about two thousand years. Even Augustine eventually came to realize "love" could be expressed in forcing someone to accept Jesus for their own eternal good.

Look, you can't have it both ways-- if this is the book that compels you to believe in a god, then you take it with it's flaws and the consequences that comes with it. Or, you accept that the bible is a snapshot in time, and clearly mortal in its words. It was written by men and men alone, and contains both the virtues and vices of men. Which applies right down the line. From condemning gays, to valuing love, to not realizing slavery is wrong, to is inspiring heroes journeys, to it's poetic myth of creation, to it's poetic myth of Ressurection.

[Keep The Reason]

But this pastor Worley goes quite a bit past even the customary homophobia, to be quite mild about it.

Actually, the bible compels you to kill them. He doesn't go that far. He says imprison them and even feed them until they die off because that makes more sense. The funny thing is, he's willing to obey only a part f the commandment. And when I say "funny", I mean "typically hypocritical".

So my larger questions, which were really intended for the Christian cohort here, are these:

They can still answer even if I chime in, right? Or if you just want their perspective, you can ask it in the Christian forum which is understood to be off limits to atheists (with one early misstep, I don't post there at all).

If the words of Jesus (Paul or no Paul) are the true essence of Christianity does any believer here think pastor Worley's words or attitudes reflect His message? Why or why not?

If not, then I'd imagine at least some Christians would find Worley's diatribe, especially now that it has come to prominence, almost as obscene as we non-believers, but those Christians would find it of even greater concern because it reflects on the set of ideas that is supposed to be most dear to them.
And if that is the case, then have any Christians, prominent or not, spoken out in public against Worley's speech?
And if not, why not?

Some people are speaking out about it like Anderson Cooper though I don't know if he's a Christian or not -- he is prominent-- but a simple google search gives you your answer.

Oh, and this ties in beautifully with the idea that my list of single individuals doesn't just apply to the individual but the people who follow as well.

Link

I'm pretty sure most of the Christians here would not like this. It is a holiday weekend though so you might have to wait for yor reply.