"God Hates Gays"

haha! They even disagree that they are a parody... :blink:

Perhaps you've heard that we are a joke, false religion or parody, and you came to our site for a few cheap laughs or "lulz", only to find people taking everything seriously. So now you have decided to be the first to "spill the beans" and let everyone in on your "knowledge". Friend, this has been done so many times that it isn't funny any more.

When an Atheist loses a debate to a fundamentalist Christian, it is a common tactic to accuse the Christian of being a parody. The Atheist is so full of pride, that he cannot imagine being outsmarted by a dumb God-Believer, so he thinks the Christian must be an Atheist like himself who is only pretending to be Christian. This is known as Tabor's Law.

Our situation is not helped by the fact that there is some atheist satirist who does an impression of our Pastor Deacon Fred at atheist conventions. People hear about him and start rumors that they are the same person and that the real Landover Baptist Church is also just a joke. Some Atheists go so far as to vandalize our church's Wikipedia page to say that we are a false religion.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=5610#tabors_law

Edit: Though LBC is satire, its ability to be believed as a real community can really show how similar real Christian fundamentalists can come off to be. What concerns me is its potential to unintentionally support and inspire people who may really think and act upon the ideas LBC expresses.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus. The third book of the old testament, supposedly written by Moses after the exodus from Egypt. Which was what many believe to be the single greatest act of divine intervention. I know many mainstream Christians won't agree with me, but what was sin in the old testament, was paid for by the death of Christ, considered to be the ultimate sacrifice. Why all of a sudden, in the new testament, is the direct descendant from god now saying turn the other cheek, love your enemies, and the meek shall rule the earth. I think people were ready to accept a different gospel in a different age. But if someone is quoting Leviticus, quote some the other skewed up sayings from the old testament and see how they react. Then say, but Jesus was a clear mark in the separation of the old ways vs the new. Ask, would Jesus hate gay people, or is that his father?

I'll re-state what I said when this subject came up before. Despite having a conservative view on homosexuality, I am not for a second going to pretend that there is a case to be made for a particularly strong biblical prohibition against it.

This pisses me off for two reasons. One, as a Christian, I believe it is theologically unsound to pick and choose parts of the old laws that you want to keep. Jesus abolished all of them. Even if it's do advance a cause that I believe in, I am not going to interpret scripture for my own benefit.

Second, every real, logical case against homosexuality is obscured by arguments supposedly based in religion. When I find myself caught in the homosexuality discussion (which is something I try to avoid for obvious reasons), it is always assumed that I have a religious reason for my opinion, and all my arguments for it are religious in nature.

Bottom line, no matter what their views on homosexuality are, they should stop twisting Christianity to suit their agenda.

Well said Star Forge. Your stance on this parallels my own.

Humbly,

Jax

I agree Star Forge, but it has to be said, that most of the on-going attitude towards LGBT community is based mostly on the OT. But you're definitely right, the OT laws were abolished by Jesus, and, therefore, homosexuality shouldn't be viewed badly by the Christian world. However, st. Paul mentions that homosexuality is a sin, which is even now taken as a granted law. I don't want to misinterpret anything, but I'm certain that Jesus didn't say: 'Love everyone, except him, and him, and her...', but accepts all people as they are: people, which is pretty much summed up in the Two Commandments of Love.

Ok lets get down to facts about what the bible says that "God hates."

First off, "hate" occurs 87 times in 85 verses in the KJV.
Of those 85 verses these following verses are the only ones where it says God hates something.

Pro 6:16 These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Pro 6:19 A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Pro 8:13 The fear of the LORD [is] to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Isa 61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

Jer 44:4 Howbeit I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending [them], saying, Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate.

Amo 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

Amo 6:8 The Lord GOD hath sworn by himself, saith the LORD the God of hosts, I abhor the excellency of Jacob, and hate his palaces: therefore will I deliver up the city with all that is therein.

Zec 8:17 And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these [are things] that I hate, saith the LORD.

Psa 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; [it] shall not cleave to me.

These are the only verses where it says that "god" hates something or someone. No where does it say "god hates fags." Those who proclaim this are simply LIARS. And guess what, that is one of six things in proverbs that GOD does say he hates, "a lying tongue."

So basically whenever you see one of these "fag haters" holding up a sign that says, "god hates fags," you can know for sure that, that is one of the people that the bible says "god does hate."

Angelus wrote: Some of you may be familiar with the Westboro Baptist church and preacher Shirley Phelps-Roper. If so, what is your position (as followers of the Abrahamic rite) on their beliefs?

They are strongly against homosexuality, as evienced by their famous picket signs that read 'God Hates Fags'. They defend this statement with a passage from the bible; "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable." Leviticus 18:22. What do you think of that? If you had to, how would you counter-argue that bible passage?

Leviticus 18:22 I believe is one of the most misunderstood versus in the Torah. Here is a paper I wrote on this subject on May 17, 2012

** Please not that in he following writing B'reishit is Genesis, Vayikra is Leviticus, Shmuel is Samuel.

This was written for a class and I just copy pasted it from my notes so if there is any questions please feel free to ask for clarification.

Shabbat Shalom, This weeks parsha is a double portion. We cover alot of bases in Parshat Acharei-Kedoshim. These readings cover what our clothes can be made of, commands us to love those who become Jews by choice, the Prohibition of witchcraft and prostitution. the regulation of workers wages and gives us the guildline of permitted relationships.

While I studied this parsha and reviewed various comentaries I thought about two people in my life. First was my younger brother Kenneth who was so consumed by self hate because of his gayness that he resorted to drugs and ultimately died of a drug overdose. Secondly, I thought of my college friend Andrew, a FTM Transgender, who while scared and unsure of the future made the decision to stand strong as he identified himself.

Jewish view points on this issue runs the gamut from total acceptance to total condemnation. Unfortunately for me when dealing with my younger brother I was unprepared and was unable to truely reach out to him. As for Andrew, 10 years later, the loss of my brother forced me to open my eyes and to reevaluate my understanding. In the more traditional observant communities there is no need to evaluate the situation it is forbidden. In the more liberal communities there is also seen as no need to evaluate the situation. It is not considered relevant and an archaic prohibition. For those of us somewhere in the middle who believe Torah and Talmud to be valid and who believe in a modern application and understanding must struggle with these questions.

I want to focus on Vayikra 18:22 V'et Zachar Lo Tishkav Mish'k'vei Ishah: To'ayvah Hiv וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination. What does this really mean. What was the context of this law. Is this commandment based on mordern Gay and Lesbian relationships? This verse has created much strife and pain in the world. It has created much discussion and many an argument. It is my opinion That this verse has nothing to with Gay and Lesbian relationships. while in college I was a religious studies majors. I was also dealing with my brothers death and the destructive behavior my brother exhibited from self hate which was a result of societies rejection of his relationship based on this verse. I came to the conclusion from research that this verse was not about homosexuality but was about idolatry. One of the pagan religions that existed in ancients times in the land of Israel was Ashtart which worshipped the fertility diety Ashterot. From what is known about Ashterot worship is that one practice was that husbands would go to the temple and pay the Ashtart Priest, who wasa male dressed as a women, to have sex. The husband after having sex with priest-prostitute would go home and have sexual relations with his wife. It was believed that intercource with this Ashtart priest would enable the couple to concieve. It is believed by some modern Biblical scholars that this is what is forbidden and not what we see in modern Gay and Lesbian Relationships.

Others will argue that Sodom and Gomorra is an example that Homosexuality is forbidden. And supports the interpretation that Vayikra 18:22 forbids all Gay and Lesbian relationships. But, I disagree. As we look at the Story of Sodom. There were many more components to the story then just the crowd of men wanting to have sexual relations. First these were representatives of HaShem. Second these were visitors and strangers to the town who are guaranteed hospitality and were denied it by the town. And Third, we are talking about rape not consensual sexual relations. Infact we see here listed the sins of Sodom and why it was destroyed Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom.:arrogance! SHe and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yt she did not support the poor and needy. In their hautiness they committed an abomination before Me, and I removed them"

When we look further in the Tanach for the answer to this issue we come across two young boys, David and Jonathan. We read in the Neviim book 1 Shmuel in chapter 18:1 that Jonathan's soul became bound up with David's soul. In chapter 18:2 That Jonathan took David and would not let him return to his fathers home. In chapter 18:3 That Jonathan made a pact or covenant, the Hebrew word is B'rit, with David. In chapter 20:41 David comes out of concealment and throws himself at Jonathans feets and bows three times and they kiss until they are over come with emotion.

Many fundamentalist point to B'reishit and say that marriage and relationships are based on procreation. But if we look deeper into B'reishit HaShem did not create Eve for Adam for the purpose of having children. Infact The creation story tells us specifically that Eve was created so that Adam would not be alone according to B'reishit 2:18Vayikra 18:22 taken literally condemns specifically the act of anal sex, If taken in a larger context and based on what we know historically of the geographical area, it is Ashtartism that is forbidden here, not the love of two men for each other or by extension the love of two women for each other.

May you find the Beshert or Soul Mate that HaShem has ordained for you.

Shabbat Shalom

In response to the original poster, I don't if there is a way to argue against that passage, but more importantly, I don't know why you would want to. Homosexuality is by no means universally opposed in Christianity or Judaism (and for what it's worth, there's a minority of Muslims who differ with the prevailing Islamic opinion. Not that I care about what they think, just throwing that in there since this is the Abrahamic section). If you're a Christian or Jew who has a problem with certain denominations having reservations against homosexuality, there are tons of other denominations that don't.

This post brings up several issues to me. First of all (and I'm not attacking the OP or anybody here), why is there this prevailing sentiment that Westboro represents a major problem in Christianity, when in reality, they are unique. Very few Christians are THAT radical. Even those who take this issue as seriously as Westboro are still more civil in their delivery.

For example, I belong to the United Methodist Church. Our stance on it can be summed up like this: "We have scriptural and practical reasons to have some reservations against homosexuality, and therefore, we do not allow homosexual clergy. However, it's not that big of an issue to us, and we generally (depending on the congregation) allow openly gay laity without much of an issue." I'm serious, we usually don't make a big deal about it, unless the liberals bring up the issue of gay clergy again, which necessitates argument. Otherwise, we don't preach sermons about it, or have political rallies against it. It's a non-issue, generally.

Again, not meaning to attack the OP or anybody else, but seriously, stop acting like Westboro is some huge trend in Christianity. It's ONE crazy troll organization, masquerading as a Church with less that 100 members, led buy a guy who was a civil rights attorney back in the day, which means he was likely a pinko or communist at some point.

That being said, religion is a dumb thing to argue about. If you feel strongly on the issue, attend a church that approves of homosexuality.

I never suggested that the WBC represented a prevailing belief. I was merely asking what my fellow Temple-goers thought of them and theirbeliefs, namely their interpretations of the bible.

Perhaps you could explain the problem that your church has with gay clergy? And under what circumstances would you "generally" tolerate homosexuality in your church? Under what circumstances would it be a problem?

"That being said, religion is a dumb thing to argue about. If you feel strongly on the issue, attend a church that approves of homosexuality."

I disagree. Religion represents ancient and incredibly influential traditions. It's inspired and divided people for thousands of years and one of the greatest and most fundamental cornerstones of human culture, society, and the human experience. Do you think thousands of years of philosophers wasted their time discussing and analyzing different faiths?

And I DO attend a church that approves of homosexuality. TOTJO enables me to practice my faith and share it with people from around the world. But personally, being content with the maxims of a faith and not questioning or disagreeing with them is tantamount to blind faith, and as religions live or die by their practitioners, I think it's important for them to adapt to the times.

Angelus wrote: I never suggested that the WBC represented a prevailing belief. I was merely asking what my fellow Temple-goers thought of them and theirbeliefs, namely their interpretations of the bible.

Perhaps you could explain the problem that your church has with gay clergy? And under what circumstances would you "generally" tolerate homosexuality in your church? Under what circumstances would it be a problem?

"That being said, religion is a dumb thing to argue about. If you feel strongly on the issue, attend a church that approves of homosexuality."

I disagree. Religion represents ancient and incredibly influential traditions. It's inspired and divided people for thousands of years and one of the greatest and most fundamental cornerstones of human culture, society, and the human experience. Do you think thousands of years of philosophers wasted their time discussing and analyzing different faiths?

And I DO attend a church that approves of homosexuality. TOTJO enables me to practice my faith and share it with people from around the world. But personally, being content with the maxims of a faith and not questioning or disagreeing with them is tantamount to blind faith, and as religions live or die by their practitioners, I think it's important for them to adapt to the times.

Hope you didn't feel like I was attacking you.

In regards to the question about the UMC: the UMC views the idea of gay clergy as unbiblical, this conviction being based upon the above quoted verse and others. When I said that the UMC's position is generally tolerant, I meant that this is the attitude of the church professes is one of tolerance (this is the trend I have seen in most UMC churches I have visited), but then again, it's a diverse church, and there are churches that are markedly more liberal or conservative than what is considered the norm within the UMC, so a few individual congregations may be less friendly. The website says this:

"The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons." The rest of the stance is here http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5066287&content_id={1F6BAEA8-E9EE-4867-B892-2F6871C78CB6}¬oc=1

I've never heard homosexuality mentioned in a UMC sermon. As I said, it's not really an issue for us, until our more liberal members bring up the gay clergy argument.

Hope that clears things up