Crazy Christian Lady on Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

Read this little story.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/19 ... ml?start=1

Ok, I read it. A women underwent a lot of genuine pain, she learned a lesson and so on and so forth. She hardly seems crazy either, but rather like a reasonably sane individual in so much as that term has meaning.

This is an interesting article. The woman is saying that while she doesn't support his lifestyle, she says she will accept him as a human being, and pray for their sinful ways. I see a very human side of this woman.

Her view is pretty typical of many conservative Christians, to be honest. I personally care very little for bigotry in any form.

The woman in this article was divorced and re-married.

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

I'm pretty sure adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments. But there's no commandment against homosexuality, and no mention of it in the New Testament as far as I am aware. On the grounds of a conservative/literalist interpretation of the Bible, this woman is more of a sinner than is her gay son. To condemn homosexuals as "sinners" is inexpressibly hypocritical because all have sinned. That's why we have been given forgiveness in Christ.

I replaced the words "gay" and "homosexual" with something like "mass-murderer" or "rapist".. and disturbingly, it had exactly the right level of seething vitriol still.

When wre religious people finally going to understand. If your straight, you're straight and if you're gay you're gay. So many kids have killed themselves because they found they could not change themselves and overcome the "sin". People are narrowminded.

I think I just puked in my mouth...

The level of bigotry in this article is incredible. The son's situation is sad, and I feel sorry for him. I wonder if she would react this way after finding out her other son secretly wore cotton/poly socks (Leviticus 19:19 New International Reader's Version, for the confused).

I love how the bible-thumping, homosexual haters throw out Lev. I guess they don't realise that, unless they are Jewish by both blood AND religion, then it DOES NOT APPLY. *headbang*

My dad does the same thing. I've oft thought of telling him I have a girlfriend just to see him crap his pants. I mean REALLY! Now, if ALL gay people were paedoes, or were puppy killers, or rapists, or whatever really gets your goat, then yea, maybe there would be a reason to dislike them. But seriously? Does anyone know the exact numbers for how many rapists of both men and women are gay? It's a disturbingly higher precentage than the norm. Homophobics will tell you its cause there's something wrong with them. And there is.

They grew up in an enviroment that hated their VERY EXISTANCE. They must act out. Is it right? No. Is it fair? No! But it IS what comes out of bigotry and hatred that has no reason.

So this woman preaching along about how she hates the sin and not the sinner. Wow, so big of her. She still harbours a hatred for these kids, even if she only hates a 'little part'.

People like this are why I am not out there evangelising. Yes, I believe in the one true God, yes, I believe Jesus his son saved us. But I sure as hell don't believe that the whole reason that any of us exist is to hate another for something that has no effect on ME.

I believe my Bible, the word of God. Not some idiot behind a pulpit with an old dusty book.

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=34139

Meh, you have to recognize that a lot of Leviticus is seen as thrown out in the NT by Christians, the dislike of homosexuals, however, is stated in both new and old testaments though, such in 1 Cor 6:9, so it really is not on the same level. I would think that most Christians and their theologians would deny the validity of a number of Levitican laws.

Orwell really had a better argument, however, the things that could screw him up is the section on "sexual immorality", as the article wasn't clear on what the man was doing after he moved out or officially got the legal status of divorced, so if he was performing sexual acts at any point in time before her remarriage that could work. As well, some interpret 1 Cor 7:15 as allowing for the divorce in this case, as the man, instead of seeking virtue, instead left her rather than the other way around, so if it is taken as valid, that could work too. In any case, I only brought up his argument because you brought up a different theological stance than most Christians take.

Right, there are passages that still support their anti-homosexuality crusade in the New Testament. I mean, you are right, a lot of laws in Leviticus do not apply now, however, homosexuality seems to be one of the things that stuck behind, that said, hating homosexuals really goes against the bible message anyway.


Yeah, basically that makes a lot of sense. I mean, it sucks being gay, people hate you for it, and well, if you are thought of as evil, it is a much smaller step to actually be evil.

Makes sense, they poison the well by pushing their hate on unbelievers rather than evangelizing through love as would be better.

Did you guys actually bother reading the article? Despite the fact that she thinks homosexuality is evil and vile -- she still loves her son. She didn't disown him. She still talks to him. She even lets him bring home his lovers and is nice to them. And it made her think about people in her workplace who are (or seem) homosexual and bisexual, and decide to change the way she acted around them and even how she thought about them. "They're just people", she said.

And you do understand she's preaching this message of tolerance and acceptance (flawed though it may be) to people who agree with her? She's telling other people who think homosexuality is evil and sinful and of the devil that they shouldn't reject homosexuals as people.

Ever hear of the phrase, "walk a mile in my shoes"?

It's like a stereotypical white power down south good ole boy, whose daughter comes up to him and says, "Daddy, don't be mad or nothin', but I'm gonna marry me a black man." Who, instead of busting out the shovel and the shotgun, decides to meet the young man and comes to the conclusion that he's not so bad. And neither are the rest of them. Is he suddenly and completely free of prejudice? Totally politically correct in all he does? Completely comfortable with his daughter's choice? Probably not. But, all things considered, he took it rather well.

To get the actual visceral effect of what happened to her, and actually put yourself in her shoes, imagine this: You are a mother, and your son comes home one day and says, "Mom, I know you'll probably be mad, but I've decided to join the KKK. The other races are dragging this country down, and something has to be done about it." Would you say, "Oh, that's nice dear. By the way, I'm having a dinner party tonight, I'd love it if you'd come. Oh, and feel free to bring all your racist friends, too."? Or would you, perhaps, be just the tiniest bit upset?


To all those who ragged on her for being a despicable bigot, and in the same breath condemned her for her religion -- try taking the plank out of your own eye first, before offering to help someone with the speck in their eye. Be careful not to be a bigot yourself.


On the adultery/hipocricy front -- this requires a very specific interpretation of a specific saying of Jesus as being not only an illustration that sins can be mental as well as physical, which it obviously is, but is also meant to be taken strictly literally as well. Despite the fact that it may well be hyperbole, and despite the fact that Jesus used hyperbole as an illustrative device. It is reasonable to make that interpretation, but there is no indication that she did, which would be neccesary for the charge of hipocricy to stick.

Yes, and this is a good thing that most Christians don't take the fundamentalist point of view. Christians that I talked to always brought up the Leviticus condemnation of homosexuality, so I was unaware that the New Testament also condemned it. Really, my point with the mixed cloth verse was: Why are some parts of Leviticus more relevant than others, and why?

Much of the Torah is taken up with the purity laws of ancient Israel, which were not considered binding by Christians. However, not all of it is purity laws, and many of the laws, though not neccesarily literally binding, are illustrative of good general moral principles -- which are binding.

Overall, the Old Testament has clearer prohibitions, but these may be merely part of the ancient purity laws. The NT has several verses which people have argued over the exact meaning and implication, which have been taken as prohibitions.