I saw the ad on CNN when they were covering the story, I think it's great! It points out the hypocracy of Christianity when it comes to homosexuality so well. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."

What I don't get is how these religious homophobes harp on this gay shit so much, when the bible tells us many more time not to eat pork than it does not to screw another dude.

AND it tells us the same number of times (once) that infanticide is an acceptable practice (PSALM 137:9). And oh yeah, the same book that forbids lying down with another man also says that if you curse your parents, you should be put to death (LEVITICUS 20:9).

Maybe an Evangelical Clergyman can clear this stuff up for me?

I'm no biblical expert but here are a couple thoughts on the passages you brought up:

First off, Psalms and Leviticus are found in the Old Testament. From the Christian point of view, the inclusion of the Old Testament in the Bible in many ways is to give us history and context behind important events leading to the coming of Christ. I'll come back to this later.

I think you may be taking Psalm 137 out of context, I don't believe it is there to condone the killing of children. Psalm 137 is a poem about the pain the Israelites are feeling after Jerusalam has fallen. By the end of the poem we are hearing their dreams of revenge against their aggressors. I think it is important to realize that these are not God's words, they are the words of the now captive Israelites. Read back a couple of lines.. "Remember, O Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. They said, “Tear it down, tear it down, right to its very foundation!” O daughter Babylon, soon to be devastated! How happy will be the one who repays you for what you dished out to us!"

Leviticus 20 is definately a strange read. These are God's words to Moses, laying out a guideline of sins that are to be punished by death. Included in the list are homosexuality, cursing your parents, having sex with your wife during her period, having sex with animals.

I found an article that does a really decent job at explaining the differences between God's old covenant (basically all these rules God sent down to the Israelites) vs. God's new covenant (taught through Christ) which in many ways was intented to replace the old covenant. A quick excerpt from the link:

"To use the Bible responsibly, Christians must read the Old Testament through the filter of the New Testament. The New Testament contains God's full revelation in Christ. It turns the light on! It removes the veil. To interpret Scripture responsibly, Christians must allow the more complete revelation of the new covenant to interpret, modify or transform old covenant statements in the light of the fulfillment in Christ.

If you just accept every old covenant statement at face value without running it through the filter of the gospel revealed in the New Testament, then you will be looking through a veil. That's what the text says.

Let me state this principle another way. Christians should not accept an old covenant law or practice on the basis of the statement itself. Every old covenant law and statement must be examined from a new covenant perspective."

It seems that the best use of limited advertising funds these days is to make a controversial ad, get some conservative media outlets to refuse the ad, and then get tons of free airplay in the surrounding controversy.

I agree, I think this amounts to little more than an excellent marketing campaign.

I'm curious what the UCC's stance is on the issue of homosexuality. Fine, they might not turn you away at the door (I don't think many churches would), but that doesn't mean they accept homosexuality.

Ryan, excellent point on the "New Covenant Filter". I've never heard it put that way, but my understanding of Scripture does, in fact, eliminate God's law to Moses as LAW. Here is my understanding:

Christ's whole purpose on earth was to give us an opportunity to release ourselves from our sin by eliminating all former rituals and rites that lead to Salvation (Acts 15: 5-12), instituting a new simple plan of obedience (through his inspired Apostles) to acheive and maintain Salvation through his precious Blood, and abolishing the Priesthood and church hierarchy (Heb 7:23-27), thus giving people the independence to accept Christ on their own through salvation, which includes repentance (renouncing the sin). Unfortunately for advocates of the sin of homosexuality, it is also condemned in the New Covenant, along with the sins of adultery, fornication, drunkeness (meaning disruptive, disorderly, etc.) and a number of others. The penaltly now, however, is only spiritual death...not physical.

2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

"Rightly dividing" is represented in other ways however this is the most direct translation from the Greek...meaning there is a correct perspective to view the Old and New Testaments from. When refering to Old Testament Law, we need not always discount it, but it should be viewed through the lense of "dividing the word". Here are a couple of good studies you may or may not be interested in reading:

Did Christ Abolish the Law of Moses? : Christian Courier
http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/abolishLawQuestion.htm

The Value of the Old Testament for Today : Christian Courier
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/oldTestamentValue.htm

As a member of a "Church of Christ", I can assure you that the "United Church of Christ" while similar in name is our polar opposit. Many UCC churches "marry" homosexuals.

There are also people that dont take all of the bible at face value. I know many Christians who have a lot of problems with Paul, who wrote a lot of the new testament. Hes infamous for saying such things as a woman "should not speak in church" and "women should not teach men" and "the man is the head of his wife as christ is the head of the church" Many people find offense in these words, personally I take it in context of what was going on at the specific churches Paul was writing to at the time.

In a similar fashion some will argue that there was homophobia throughout the history of biblical writings, which comes out as "god" condemming it. Afterall, regardless of what you believe about the inspiration or purpose of the Bible it was written by men & women. The Bible claims that "no one is righteous" and that man is fallen, so there are some that read the bible with the impression that there are mistakes and exaggerations due to the humanity of its writers. Others believe that despite the fact that humans wrote the Bible God preserved its integrity and it is all to be taken as ultimate truth.

Personally, i dont focus so much on enforcing the "rules" of the bible on people but more being compassionate and accepting. From what I understand Christ came to help people, not condem them. There are times I have felt condemned because of certain thoughts or feelings I have expressed to other Christians. Instead of condemnation there needs to be an open dialog and an understanding that life is a spiritual journey. I think its kind of brash to claim that you have it all figured out (though at one time i did) or that any one group of people has the "right" view of the Bible, God and the meaning of life.

I sometimes feel that legalism (rule following) is becoming a replacement for faith and the leading of the Holy Spirit in some Christian circles. There needs to be some sort of healthy balance between the law and the spirit. My understanding is that people are no longer to live by the law, which was fufilled in Christ, but in the Spirit, which guides us like our conscience. Then again you have the whole free will vs predestination thing that really makes things confusing. I definitely dont have it figured out yet.

Just my 2 cents :)

Without getting into an entire discussion about Biblical inspiration - here are my thoughts on:

'Hes infamous for saying such things as a woman "should not speak in church" and "women should not teach men" and ...'

I am a big fan of context, but I understand the Epistles to be inspired instructions to the Church. Many of the women in our congregation follow those rules strictly. It doesn't mean they never speak in the building, but they make a special effort to be humble during study. They also happen to be awesome women, who are decent, moral, and credible. They show their skill, love and compassion on a daily basis through the work of the church and elsewhere.

"the man is the head of his wife as christ is the head of the church..."

We had this Scripture read at our wedding, and take it very seriously. If you read on, Paul also commands the husband to "love his wife as Christ loved the Church." This is NO small task...and a huge responsibilty that I take very VERY seriously. The relationship of the husband and wife to the relationship of Christ to his bride the Church is a powerful metaphor, and one that is overlooked way too often by people who try and belittle the Bible. I also wish the verse you mentioned wasn't so often abused by men who just want to excercies power over their wives and use it to replace their shortcomings in other areas. When God instituted the familial structure, the basis for society, he did not institute a brutal disctatorship. He instituted a loving, reverant, lifelong union that when practiced according to His will, is the ultimate bond of respect and submission (on both sides) that human beings can share. It's easy to describe, but challenging to acheive...and I prayerfully do my best everyday.

yep, im familiar with all that. I used to attend an orthodox presbyterian church where women not only kept silent in church but also wore head coverings.

I personally have a difficult time with the idea that a wife should submit to her husband based on my parents marriage. They had the best marriage ive ever seen, were both conservative christians, but they definitely did not agree that one was the head of the other. It is also difficult to reconcile that Paul says that men and women are equal in Christ and then sets up these roles. Ive heard the argument to smooth this over but it just doesnt jive with me.

I believe "Equal in Christ" and basic roles are two separate things. I'm happy your parents had a great marriage while not agreeing on roles. I guess it's just all a matter of your attitude. Almost nobody would disagree (especially if they have been married) that having a good marriage requires putting aside a great deal of selfishness. The minister that married us put it best. He said "Marriage is not 50%-50%, it's 100%-100%." If you only give 50%, then both are always going to be holding something back from one another. If you look at it that way, it makes perfect sense.

As far as the man being the head...just as a company or business or club needs a leader, the Lord instituted a gentle abd loving leader for the family. He made men with a natural biological tendency to want to lead. If a wife seems to have no respect for her husband's natural leadership instincts, a man can become frustrated and angry. I believe that women want to be respected and loved...but are not necessarily as bilogically inclined to lead. She can become just as frustrated and angry, though, if her contributions aren't respected and appreciated. Acheiving a balance that respects both of those biological inclinations in a loving manner is the best way to help a couple live in harmony. Again, I don't think anyone would dispute that men and women in general are VERY different. I think God's plan for marriage is a way of accounting for that.

Believe me, I'm not trying to smooth it over...nor do my wife and I feel that we are "smoothing it over" in the way we are trying to live. I never give my wife orders, or say stupid things like "obey me or else". I have too much love for her to say that...but her respect for me is amazing because she knows if there is a disagreement on something that we will discuss it as any couple would and only if there is a total impasse would I make the final decision. Truthfully, many times I have changed my mind on the merits of her points or vice-versa so my "authority" isn't needed, because of our love and respect for each other. This also does not mean that our discussions (or even fights...) have never become heated, but we always have a great time making up when they are. :o) We are not perfect, but I think striving for this ideal ultimately has improved our marriage.

I know some will think what I'm saying is "sexist" but the biological conflicts become very apparent in a marriage (or even just a live-in relationship) since you are together ALL the time. I believe that if a couple never read the Bible... but laid aside all selfishness and just did their best to think about the needs of the other person AND their emotional needs as a woman/man, Paul's pattern would still be what emerges.

Great discussion.

I had only heard of Mormons putting out television commercials before. Do at lot churces do tv ads? It seems strange to me.

Actually now that I think about it, the Mormons do an ad for a video about the Church of Latter Saints, which is slightly different than an ad for the church itself.

And I had a typo in my previous comment. It should read "Do a lot of churches do tv ads?"

If I recall correctly the United Methodist Church put out ads that said something like "Open hearts, open minds, open doors" or something. Ive seen them before. It wasnt anything like the UCC ads though, this was just the emblem of the United Methodist Church with someone talking. That is the only other one Ive seen.

Oh yeah, and if you guys think Dude is harsh you should get a load of the guy that left a comment in my blog regarding my more indepth take on these tv ads (dailyamoeba.blogspot.com if youre interested):

"Ahhh...I know your type. Twisting the Bible to fit your needs. You don't get the option to interpret the Bible as you see fit. If it says homosexual relations are wrong, which it does, then they are wrong. If it says killing is wrong, which is does, then abortion must not be allowed to continue.

Exactly what religion are you, anyway? Do you follow a doctrine or just mix and match for your own pleasure and senseless rambling??"

Geez! ;)

I like these people:
Group Asks Networks to Remove Hummer Ads in Wake of NBC and CBS Banning Church Ads

In Akron there is a local non-denominational church that runs ads all the time. They feature the pastor of the church speaking directly to the camera in a very earnest fashion.

These ads always make me very uncomfortable and am glad to see they have not caught on in the Columbus market.

Dude, could you tell me where the New Testament in says homosexuality is a sin? I really thought it only said that once in the Old Testament.

And was that a little but of interpetation about being drunk? :) It doesn't say that shooting up smack is a sin either. ;) Yes, those were different times.

polamex - here is a website that lists some new testament scriptures that condemn homosexuality:

http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality.html

I dont know the exact reference in the new testament, but I have read that "idolators, slanderers, ..., homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God" in one of those scriptures listed.

About being drunk, this site has some good references:

http://www.biblecenter.com/counseling/alcohol.htm

it also has the text out of Corinthians I was referring to about homosexual offenders.

I am dissapointed that the biblecenter site did not include one of the Psalms (maybe 9?) that talks about Widsom, personafide as a woman, setting her table with wine. Or Jesus turning water into wine, which is more widely known.

I also dont like the way they paraphrase 1 Corinthians 6:11 by inserting (drunkards, etc) but I guess you get the idea in general

This is the thing I find interesting about the whole religion/Bible thing. When does individuality enter the picture, if at all? (I guess it's a variation of the ol' free will question again.) It's an ernest question. I have a successful, happy relationship with a great man. He would hate hate hate to be the final decision maker. That's just who he is. So we make decisions together. He is an abomination in the eyes of god or what? If we laid all selfishness aside, decisions would never be made.

KW, clearly you haven't seen ads for the holy rollers who broadcast their Sunday services on Fox. Seriously. You should keep an eye out. Also, there are billboards popping up left and right for different churches. Maybe it's a seasonal thing?

Looks like you didn't need me to find the Biblical references. Yes, drunkards is included in the list...and yes, Jesus turned water into wine. It is important to note that the English word "wine" in Scripture is translated from two seperate Greek (and Hebrew) words, one meaning fermented, the other meaning non-fermented. One is used sometimes, the other the rest of the time. That said, I am one of the first to put someone in their place when they suggest that simply drinking alcohol is a sin. The word "drunkards" obviously implies abuse of the substance...and would also imply abuse of smack (with some substances, use alone constitutes abuse, but not alcohol). I realize there is some roomm for opinion here. Good thing we have Jesus.

In my opinion the fact that the need for wine at a wedding was dire enough to call for a MIRACLE from our Lord and Saviour (along with an Old Testament Scriptures where the people of God were actually instructed to have a party with alcohol) tells me that it's ok to have a party, you just need to keep your wits about you, that's all. The overwhelming number of Scriptural references to alcohol are cautionary, to the references balance out.

Homosexuality is not only condemned by the new Testament, the more key point that people tend to ignore is that it is never CONDONED throughout Scripture. Marriage is mentioned over 400 times in the Old and New Testaments and it is ALWAYS between men and women (I use the plural since polygamny was accpetable under the law of Moses). Further, in all of the hundreds of stories of God's people and their struggles in both Testaments there is NEVER a homosexual couple mentioned that is in favor with God.

Am I really harsh? I could introduce you to some people who are harsh...lol.

Forgot Emily:

I'm glad you have a good relationship. It doesn't sound like you guy are married though, which is what we're talking about.

If you are, though, and you make decisions together and it works, I think that's fine. That's what we do. As I said before, my "authority" is only used in rare cases. If you two NEVER have an impasse and can always come to a conclusion together, then it sounds like you are better at exercising the Biblical pattern than we are! Congratulations! :o)

What is a case where you use your authority? Or where a man would get to use his authority?

Just curious.

Dude, in your response to Emily, are you saying that in relationships before marriage, men and women are equal and only after marriage do men become the "authority?"

Dude - I was chiding you about being harsh ;) The maniac in my blog made me appreciate people (like yourself) that will discuss differences in opinions reasonably, even when those differences are over strongly held core beliefs.

I know of the fresh grape juice & fermented words being the same, still I would agree that to be DRUNK is the sin, not drinking. I think in those cases I tend to reckon back to Pauls words about eating meat sacraficed to idols. If im out with a person that has a problem with alcohol I refrain from drinking, otherwise ill drink if I want.

My question is what is with this Red Sea vs Reed Sea business they brought up on the discovery channel documentary about Ramses yesterday. I have a really hard time believing such a glaring discrepancy would just now be realized.

Like Brette said, I don't see how it matters if we're married, but you're right, Dude, I'm not yet married. I'm close, though, does that count? :) I don't feel like my question about individuality is answered by saying that my relationship isn't what the Bible is talking about since we're not married. I doubt my man will undergo a drastic personality change once we are married (I hope he doesn't, anyway!). Also, isn't the Biblical pattern that the man will automatically assume head of household duty? Then aren't we failing miserably? ;)

I'm not really trying to use my relationship an ideal or a goal or whatever, just as an example of what I was trying to get at with my question. Does the Biblical principal account for individuality at all? Is it just a total last resort? I am actually just curious since I've never heard about this before.

Emily - ironically for all the criticism about Biblical rigidity in this area, my opinion is it's a general pattern. Different couples may chose to follow Paul's instructions in different ways. I decided to share personally to tell you how my wife and I attempt to do it. My note to Hugh below should shed a little more light on your question about individuality as well...

Brette - Nope, I didn't mean that. I'm not sure at the moment if/where Scripture addresses that. I just meant what we were talking about right now is marriage.

Hugh - I think i have shared enough about my own marriage, without telling you an entire story. Basically, if after a full discussion one hasn't convinced the other and a decision must be made...the man, as the spiritual leader of the household would make it. That's the best I can do for you. As I said to Emily, different Christian couples have different dynamics and it's not all uniform. Some women are much more submissive than my wife, and prefer it that way. Alternately, some perfectly legitimate Christian marriages may have a more docile husband...I really don't know for sure. Unfortunately, some men may misunderstand God's will for their family and may become disrespectdul, dictatorial or even abusive. That is contradictory to God's word in my opinion.

Gizmo - Thanks for the compliment. I do my best to share what I believe to be truth in a loving way. As some of you have experienced, it's one of my biggest struggles. I try to be humble, and I pray about it alot. :o) I take the same approach that you do with drinking. There are several young couples from my church that we spend time with and none of them drink at all. We respect that, and don't drink around them. When we get home though, you may find us checking for the latest shipment from that vineyard in CA. :o)

By the way, I highly recommend joining the wine club there. Their products are exquisite.

http://www.savannahchanelle.com/

Lemme simplify some facts for yall. Just got to remember two simple things.

#1 Womens are biologically inferior to men. Theyre muscles are weaker and so are the brains they got. That aint an insult to you chicks on here it is just a scientific fact. I saw a scientist say it once, he even had a book about it. Maybe you chicks should read it.

#2 Keeping fact #1 in mind it is easy to see why the men got to do all the thinking. We got to run the families, run the busnesses and run the companys. Thats just the best way.

If you aint man enough to stand up to a woman then you need to move to san fransisco with the rest of them queers and let us men do things right.

LOL. BigSam, you from Texas?

Somehow I don't think he is from Texas...:o/

yo man is all good...wassup wit all dis judgemet?!?! sheeeee-it. Man I be mindin' my own biznis an you bustin ma ass. I dis be doin' what I feel...don't be bringin dat hypocrytical sit all up in heaaa!

San Leandro?

Wait, is this like that duck that ran around asking everyone "are you my mother?"

Maybe geolocator works by running around the internet asking if it has found the destination. I wont tell it where it is, Ill just keep it deadlocked.

Chandler? (AZ, not Bing.)

Someone want to explain to me what this "geolocator" thing is all about??

I'm going to guess geolocator is an IP -> geographical location service. See that number after your name when you post something? That is your IP address -- it is your unique address on the web at the moment you make your post. They are issued to you by your service provider and can generally be narrowed down to a locale... like Middleton, Wisconsin. ; )

I know what an IP address is. I just wondered if this person was someone you know or if they're blog-hopping just identifying people's locations. It seemed a little weird to me.

btw...I'm not in Middleton, I'm in Madison. HA! :o)

By the way...where the hell is "Feasterville"??

Yeah, I dunno who that was. Maybe someone who works for ip2location spamming our site. ; )