Doesn’t strike me as the sort to back down
Jeanne Assam, the hero who helped stop a church shooter in Colorado, says she’s now been asked to leave the church because she is gay. The church denies it and I hope it’s not true. That’s now way to treat a lady or a hero.
February 28th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
The quote in that article from the current pastor seems unequivocal in that she is welcome there and is considered a hero by the congregation.
February 28th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Whoa…. if she is a practicing ‘gay’ then that is against their religion.
So I can see them showing her the door if that is what they did. Doing an ‘abomination’ is just that and they cannot ignore it.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
To understand the Church’s position I think you need to reconcile three scriptural concepts
1. for a man to lie with a man or a woman to lie with woman is an abomination.
2. Judge not, for you will be judged with the measure you use.
3. Christ came to redeem the lost, not the righteous.
If Mrs. Assam would like a nice church to go to, I’ll scoot down and she is welcome to sit next to me and my family. I think I have a connection with the people who could arrange for her to join the security detail too.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Nope. Just dudes. No calling lesbians an abomination. Guess they’re cool. But eating shrimp is also an abomination.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
So I can see them showing her the door if that is what they did.
Depends on what you mean by showing her the door. If you mean, “Get out you are not welcome until you are ‘straight’!” or If you mean, “I’m sorry to hear that you are unrepentant about a sin in your life, we’ll have to strike your name off the list of members for the time being, but I hope to see you next Sunday”.
The former should never be done. There is no better place for sinners than in a church, that’s what they are there for.
The latter should be standard policy for all sins, not just homosexuality.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
But eating shrimp is also an abomination.
Only for Jews.
Gentiles are not required to keep kosher, but are required to abstain from sexual immorality. (See Acts Chapter 5)
February 28th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
The same laws that call a man laying with a man an abomination also say that eating pork and shellfish is an abomination. In fact, I believe the same word in Hebrew is used. A woman wearing pants is also an abomination (wearing the clothing of the opposite gender). You can’t pick and choose which ‘abominations’ are better or worse than others. You can’t just decide that homosexuality is a sin, but all the other things that you happen to enjoy are fine. Well, you can. Lots of people do. It’s pure hypocracy.
Personally, I’m partial to this page on the subject:
http://www.dragonlordsnet.com/abomination.htm
February 28th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
This is gonna make leftists’ heads hurt. How should they think of Jeanne Assam now?
Is she to be shamed because she carries (and will use) a firearm, or is she to be acclaimed because she’s gay?
February 28th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Sad to see people repeating the same old “But eating shrimp is also an abomination” inanity, although I’m glad YAG corrected it. If a person doesn’t understand the basic differences between Judaism and Christianity then perhaps he ought not speak on the subject until he does, else he reveal his ignorance.
February 28th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
I’m okay with ignoring the kosher laws. I’ll list more of the other abominations, instead.
Wearing blended fabrics (not illegal)
A lying tongue (not illegal)
Adultery (technically illegal, too easily forgiven or forgotten)
Breaking vows (sometimes illegal)
Laying with a woman during menses (whether having sex or not – I don’t know any husbands that move to the couch during it. Certainly not illegal)
Planting a field with more than one kind of seed (not illegal)
Justifying the wicked (defending a favored politician’s ‘lapses in judgement’, like affairs. Not illegal)
I am curious as to which passages in the New Testament specify what Christ meant by ‘sexual immorality’. He could have just meant taking a person by force, a certain age that is too young for sex, laying with a relative, committing adultery, etc.
March 1st, 2011 at 2:14 am
Ok, I read that article and I must say that Ms.Jeanne Assam is honest and courageous. And to all of you bible thumpers, koran thumpers and any other ingnorant redacted redacting redacters, I will flat out tell you that you HAVE the RIGHT in America to bar individuals that do not follow the tenets of your faith. Yes, it is that simple. Ask the Pope. I will tolerate you because I respect your right to practice your faith. As long as you don’t tread on me we’re square. And this is why I never talk about religion.
March 1st, 2011 at 10:46 am
My apologies, it’s Acts 15 not Acts 5. Sorry for the typo.
Mrs. ‘Dragon’,
The relevant verse would be Verse 20, but it should really be considered within the context of about verse 5 forward.
This section is the ruling on the issue of whether gentiles should be required to keep the law of Moses (which is where your examples come from).
The short answer is that no, they do not have to keep the law of Moses. There are only 4 “Laws” that Gentiles should adhere to.
1) Refrain from idolotry
2) Refrain from fornication (sex outside of Marriage, so yes Adultery and pre-marital sex is right out)
3) Refrain from eating meat slaughtered by strangulation
4) Refrain from consuming blood (and no, that red juice from a steak is not blood)
That does not mean those four things are the only sins, just that they are the only things that are a matter of “religious law”.
March 1st, 2011 at 11:13 am
Then… why is it so important to keep the law about a man laying with another man?
March 1st, 2011 at 12:25 pm
What do you mean?
Homosexuality is pretty clearly non-marital sex and as such falls under prohibition 2.
If you mean why does it seem that homosexuality is treated worse than other non-marital sexual sins, I would tell you that I consider that to be a failing on the part of people who do so.
March 1st, 2011 at 12:44 pm
But it isn’t all non-marital/extra-marital sex being persecuted so actively, just homosexuals. People keep focusing on the ‘The Bible says it’s an abomination’ argument, when your own reasoning says Gentiles don’t have to follow that law. There’s still no specifics about what Christ meant by ‘sexual immorality’. Adultery isn’t pursued vigorously, and it made it into the Ten Commandments. That seems a far worse sin than two people loving each other.
Also, this seems to me to be an excellent reason to make gay marriage legal. Make it no longer non-marital. 🙂
March 1st, 2011 at 2:32 pm
But it isn’t all non-marital/extra-marital sex being persecuted so actively, just homosexuals.
Yes and no (And remember I did say that I consider treating homosexuality as worse than adultery a failing). But at the same time, saying that adultery is sinful isn’t exactly contraversial, so it wouldn’t get talked about as much even if it were considered the worse sin of the two. So “Talked about more” does not necessarily mean “Worse”. For example, take the boycott of Disney for “Gay Day”. Do we only see the boycott over gays and not adultery because they consider gay sex worse, or is it because there isn’t a corresponding “Adulterer’s Day” to boycott over? My opinion is that they consider gay sex to be worse, but absent an “Adulterer’s Day” I don’t have any facts to support it.
when your own reasoning says Gentiles don’t have to follow that law.
Not exactly. If we were to scrap our entire body of criminal law and construct a new one that still included a prohibition on murder would you say that people no longer had to follow the old law about murder? Technically this would be correct. People no longer had to follow the old law about murder and instead have to follow the new law about murder. But one way or another murder is still against the law even if people reference the old law instead of the new one.
There’s still no specifics about what Christ meant by ’sexual immorality’.
How specific are you looking for? Non-Marital is fairly specific (Christ called out, politely, “The Woman at the Well” for exactly that). But no, He doesn’t exactly speak on permissiveness of any given sexual position. It’s an issue not of what type of sexual activity you can have, but rather who you can have it with.
Also, this seems to me to be an excellent reason to make gay marriage legal. Make it no longer non-marital.
While funny, this wouldn’t actually work for two reasons. For one, secular law and religious law are independent. Changing secular law wouldn’t have an effect on religious law. Secondly, changing the meaning of words wouldn’t change the law, it would just change the verbage of the law so that the meaning is preserved.