Unaware that their cause had been lost, a small number of Japanese soldiers deep in the jungles of the Philippines continued waging guerrilla warfare against an imaginary enemy years after World War II had ended.
Via dropped pamphlets, newspapers left everywhere, and even relatives at the jungle's edge hollering at them through bullhorns, the diehard soldiers got the news the war had ended. They just didn't believe it.
It's as obvious as a stunning rainbow in the sky that within, say, 10 years, any church or denomination still fighting against the marriage of gay couples and the ordination of gay clergy will be like those recalcitrant Japanese soldiers living amongst the mangrove trees of Lubang Island long after everyone else has accepted peace as a fact and adjusted to the new world order.
And that's 10 years tops. At the rate things are changing now, I wouldn't be surprised if by Thursday the Pope was a drag queen.
OK, I'd be a little surprised.
OK, fine: the Pope (despite the full-length resplendent robes and the tiara-on-testosterone headdress) will never be a queen. But as surely as the cessation of gunfire and your cousin screaming at you through a bullhorn, "Come out! It's over! Stop embarrassing me!" means the war you were fighting has ended, men and women of the gay and lesbian persuasion will 'ere long be fully welcomed into every American Protestant church, where a great many of them will step up and assume their usual place in the pulpit.
It took longer for some Christians than others to understand that the Bible does not, in fact, sanction slavery.
It took longer for some Christians than others to understand that the Bible does not, in fact, forbid women's civil rights.
And now it's taking longer for some Christians than others to understand that the Bible does not, in fact, decree that moments into their afterlife anyone who dies an unrepentant homosexual is immediately issued a one-way ticket on the Hell Crosstown Express.
Here's the headlines-making Gallup Poll released a couple of weeks back:
Don't you wish that green line was the U.S. economy? Well it's not. It's the percentage of the population that believes same-sex marriage should be legal.
Want a tip for improving your economy? Invest in same-sex wedding cake toppers.
Ka-ching!
"The blue hairs" is a phrase sometimes used by Christian publishers to refer to the conservative Christians who own the Christian bookstores in which the publishers want and need to sell their books. One of the massive factors that for a great many years has kept Christian book authors and publishers from coming out and saying what they privately believe about same-sex couples and Christianity is that they literally cannot afford to offend the ever-vigilant blue hairs. Should the blue hairs take offense to something in your book -- which they do vet for orthodoxy -- then no book sales for you!
Well, Christian publishers and authors can stop worrying now. Today, the blue-haired lady has either died, gone out of business, or changed her mind. Today's blue-haired lady takes yoga classes. Today, the blue-haired lady has a gay grandchild or nephew whom she loves with all her heart.
The Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the United Church of Christ now favor the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy.
Science continues to affirm homosexuality as inborn (not that anyone who's ever actually known a gay person doubts it).
The biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did.
Young people -- Christians very definitely included -- fail to understand why the church makes such a big deal, or any deal at all, about gays and lesbians.
The bottom line on the whole gay/Christianity issue is that, in an astonishingly short period of time (yay Internet!), we have reached Ye Oldyee Tipping Poiynte. And that seesaw will only continue to further tip in the direction it is now. Which (let's face it) is to the left.
And I won't deny that works for me personally. For verily am I already just ever so slightly weary of calling into the jungle through a bullhorn for the deeply confused, bizarrely obdurate combatants in there to come forward and step out into the open: to enjoy the sunshine, to relax, to get a hug, to finally be at peace with an enemy who isn't even there.
To finally and once again see not just trees, but the whole beautiful forest.
Read the Wikipedia entry on Hirro Onoda, the last of the Japanese soldiers fighting WWII -- or of any soldier anywhere, ever, I would think -- to surrender. Or, you can read what I consider one of my greatest online finds ever: Badass of the Week: Hiroo Onoda.
John also blogs on JohnShore.com. He invites you to "like" his Facebook page.
Follow John Shore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnshore
Christianity and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality ...
Study Measures Effect of Family Acceptance on Gay Teens, Christian ...
Thankfully we probly dont have 10 years left before Jesus cracks the sky. Nevertheless,sin will always be an abomination to God and fornication will always be sin.
Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn
And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.
Any of these problems would negatively affect an adopted child.
When being gay is no longer drenched in shame by the likes of you, and gay people can live openly, confident that who they are is just fine, those psych stats will drop, as will the STD stats, as those are associated with risky behavior, which is far more common among ALL people living with psychological disorders.
What a phenomenal comment! Thank you.
The thing is, Dockers and birds of a similar feather will point to so-called psychiatric “studies” attempting to pathologize Gay people. Interestingly, they do so without specifically referencing these articles. Because of this, their feeble attempt to lend their bigotry a patina of scientific credibility is seen for what it is and falls flat on its face.
Also, these types toss out Bible verses supposedly condemning homosexuality. Of course, they do so without explanation - or providing it when asked. Again, they do this to lend the impression that God justifies their unsupportable anti-Gay bigotry.
Fortunately, these people are increasingly being seen for the charlatans they are.
Fanned.
--ez
According to the Church, the only way to earn salvation is to live a life of *forced* celibacy AND beg forgiveness for who they are - for exactly how God Himself made them. They must live life without a partner. They cannot flirt. They cannot date. They cannot hold hands. They cannot know the incredible breathtaking joy of falling in love. They cannot seek the intimate partnership of a spouse - you know, that one trusted soul who knows you better than anyone - who accepts you even with all your flaws and loves you anyway, who can make you feel better when you are sick or hurting, the one person who understands you when no one else can. They cannot love, as you can, as I can. Whether we find true love is certainly not guaranteed, but for gay people, the Church guarantees that they will not, because they must deny that very basic part of themselves. Because the Church WRONGLY believes that homosexuality is only about sex,
Imagine gay people actually be treated by the same standards as are straight people. shocking!
The horror of allowing other people to live their lives as threy see fit.
"The biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did."
The author is seeing your bigot and raising you one non-bigot.
There is sufficient disagreement within the church about the topic of homosexuality that you will NOT find consensus on the subject, so how can YOU declare that YOU personally are sure that your conviction is God's Spirit in you, and not your own bigotry? I think there is plenty of room for you to practice a little "fear and trembling before an Almighty God," rather than a holier-than-thou self-righteousness.
Can't get any better than this! Freedom rings.
Then we will have the New Pentecost (the real Angels in America or apocalypse) and the religious wars. Biblical; consistency is restored and the democratization of sin becomes a faddish excess of a decadent society.
Which religious group is the next to splinter? I have the UCC on the edge after bleeding 23% under John Thomas since 1999 and the The Biblical Witness Fellowship knowing deep down a split is now inevitable leaving the UCC with maybe 700,000 or so more interested in the Democratic Party agenda than that old artifact the bible. I've got the Presbys leading the pack for a formal schism after the UCC implodes.
If you are, that's sad. And it is also the basis for every religious war in europe for centuries, because god had a preference for singing a hymn in french, as opposed singing the same hymn in latin.
or vice versa. It is hard to remember why his followers kill each other over their authoritative interpretation of a book which by its very nature is unable to provide any authority. It is equally hard to understand why his followers are so obsessed with homosexuality.
It would be nice if your religonists actually had faith in god, instead of demanding that bible serve as your proof that god actually exists, cares about you, and is interested in what you think about him and everything you imagine he thinks about.
This consistent preference for the bible rather your relationship with god is called bibliolotry, and like every idolatry, is destructive.
We've been accepting LGBT folk in the UCC for a long time. And women and African-Americans long before that. Seems pretty freaking simple to me.
This is how the conversation should go at every church, whether about LGBT, minorities, people with piercings, drug addicts, white color criminals, women or men or in between, old or young, educated or not, mentally ill or not, or whatever:
Confused person who doesn't understand what 'everyone' means: "Say, Larry, is this person here supposed to be part of the church?"
Larry: "Is he/she part of God's creation?"
Confused person: "Yes, I suppose."
Larry: "Then open the *%!@$ door! And let 'em fulfill their calling!"
Confused: "But, they're a ..."
Larry: "IRRELEVANT! OPEN WIDE THE DOORS!!"
Second, nothing about being gay or lesbian violates any of the Ten Commandments. However, saying that it DOES violate the Ten Commandments is a violation of Commandment 9 - you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (You also violated this commandment by misquoting me above). The only commandment of the ten that an LGBT's sexuality could possibly violate is the "don't commit adultery," but that's about violating marriage vows, and so it is, in fact, impossible for them to violate that commandment. Only heteros can.
Lastly, I can't imagine God would make anyone in a way that would make them automatically hell-bent just by the very nature of the way God made them. You subscribe to the ignorant premise that we choose our sexual preference - we don't. It is how God made us. We no more control our sexual preference than we do eye color, leg length, or immune system. If God makes some people to be automatically out of the bounds of salvation, then God is a capricious, mean SOB not worth our time. I don't believe the God offered to us in scripture is that. Perhaps you like that god; if so, then fine. But don't call it the God of scripture.
"The biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did."?
Sounds like there is sufficient disagreement whether simply being gay in a loving gay relationship is in fact SIN. Most of the verses quoted refer to abusive relationships of power - but that would apply to the dominant male/dominated female relationship as well.
And if you wish to refer to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, please do some research on what the major and minor prophets said -- that S&G were destroyed for lack of hospitality to strangers. The major and minor prophets never said anything about "Sodomy" in relation to Sodom.
If you refer to your King James Bible, where the story concerning Jesus going into the wilderness to pray and fast for 40 days, it tells you that Satan "allowed" Jesus. Nice and clear? Pardon the abuse of your understanding, but the English language has changed since the time of Shakespeare. Today, it would read and Satan "hindered" Jesus. Much more sense in that translation.
Translations, therefore, of ancient scriptures into any language will be fraught with problems. And the translations of the verses so commonly used to bash gays are some of the MOST problematic. Want proof? First look up the translation of the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 1 in multiple translations. Only the Jehovah's Witnesses will be even one word different. THEN look up all your gay-bashing verses and see if any of them translate with that same level of similarity on the words chosen.
There is significant disagreement, therefore there is significant doubt about what the author was trying to say.
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Unfortunately in my Synod (groups of Presbyteries organized for mission work) all seven Presbyteries are against LGBT inclusion. That's all of the state of Washington, the northern half of Idaho and Alaska. This is so for even the Presbytery of Seattle, which isn't much bigger than Seattle, a very liberal city.
I live in North Puget Sound and the ordination I gave up is from Central Washington. It's still a long time away from when I can recover my ordination in my Church as a Bisexual Transsexual Woman.
I was married to a Catholic for 15 years. I attended Mass and our children attended the parochial school. No Catholic I ever met really, truly, believed in Catholicism as it is defined by the Pope. Which makes me wonder why Catholics stand for it, why Catholics continue to participate in a religion with which they disagree on so many issues. Now, in my 50s, I know far more "recovering Catholics," including said ex-husband, than I do actual Catholics.
I found much beauty in the rituals of Mass. And we had a very forward-thinking priest who was a great storyteller - for those reasons, I enjoyed it very much. So I admit to being sad and confused that so many feel beholden to the twisted hierarchy of their Church.
It isn't.
Secondly, I agree with you that if people want, for religious reasons, to believe that being gay is a sin, they have that right. I think they're dead wrong, and probably have some psychological or intellectual issues that they need to deal with, but it is their right. And if they want to exclude LGBT from their houses of worship, then fine.
But, they should bite their hateful tongues and shut up about how the government - a secular entity - regards the people who are citizens of this country.
Even if our federal government makes gay marriage legal - and it should - such a law would still only apply to the legal, state part of marriage. It would not behold any church or other religious group to authorize or perform such marriages in a religious ceremony.
I've read your past posts about the energy sink hole that is the Christian Right. I'm fascinated with the whole thing as I live in a very liberal state and most of the name calling seems to be coming from the Left these days. People who fully backed civil unions are now homophobes and hateful bigots because they fail to back each and every piece of social legislation on the LGBT agenda? Or Islamophobes because they feel uncomfortable with the Park51 project while troops are still overseas or because they opposed the disinvestiture from Israel as proposed in 2005?
If someone disagrees with your position on abortion and says :"You know its possible the spirit and soul enters the womb at conception and we face some real social challenges over unwanted children" are they haters too?
Lets speak plainly about this. There is absolutely no rational basis to deny gay people the same rights as everyone else, the only real argument one could make against it is purely from a religious standpoint. And while I respect peoples right to believe what they want to believe, that does not give them the right to force their religious beliefs on others. The constitution may protect people of faith from the government, but it also protects the government from people of faith, its a two way street.
As a non-believer in any of these man made stories this is especially offensive.
.
Either your statement is not well-thought-out or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of "religious rights".